Labor day update

Nothing spurs fundamentalist outrage like defending the Christian faith of Barack Obama. After all, just look at his name. He can't be Christian. Plus, he is a liberal, and every fundy knows that Jesus hearts Sarah Palin. After all, everyone knows she is a Christian. Just look at her.

Sigh.

But today is Labor Day and today, I am thankful for much. Streak's roller coaster ride took a turn up over the weekend. Friday night was bad and so was Saturday morning. Yesterday morning, he ate quite a bit of peanut butter and seemed to enjoy it. And last night, after a non-emergency trip to the emergency vet to empty his bladder, for the first time in over a week, Streak ate some boiled hamburger and actually peed outside on his own. They had to muzzle him at the vet (and we heard a few of his trademark yelps) and maybe that was the last straw for him. No more sticking that up his, well, you know.

Anyway. This morning he ate again and did his morning duties. And we did a little short walk. Have no clue how much more time we have with him, but this morning and last night were just great. We will take them. Any day.

But I am also grateful for those labor activists who worked over the years to push for things like an 8 hour work day and a 40 hour week. And those who pushed to end child labor, and those who pushed to have basic safety protections in dangerous jobs. And those who fought against locking workers inside dangerous buildings. And those who pushed for minimum wage laws. Even if now people who benefit from everyone of those things now work politically to undermine those advancements.

And finally, I am grateful to spend today with SOF and Streak and our other dog Abbie and our two cats (the diabetic Calvin, and the crazy and sweet Molly). I am grateful that my parents are back from their trip and that my dad is feeling better. I am grateful for my friends (those I have blog-met and those who have listened to my bullshit in person), and my nieces and nephews and other relatives who still seem to like me.

Happy Labor Day.

God has no grandchildren

Randall Balmer reminds Franklin Graham of what he claims to believe. That whole "Obama was born Muslim and has the seed of Islam" was racist bullshit from someone who claims to be a "man of God." He should be ashamed, but fundamentalists know no shame.

Update

I am afraid that Streak is struggling this weekend. We are starting to lose hope that he can get his strength back. It is hard to tell what the problem is, but his insides just appear to be in revolt. We are trying to make him comfortable and see how he does over the next 24 hours. He is still trying, and that is something.

Anyway. Wish I had better news about the little guy.

Just one more reason I find modern conservatives to be unhinged

Gingrich: Make Ground Zero A National Battlefield To Stop The Supposed Mosque. And Newtie says that if the federal government won't do it, then either the state or local governments should. As some of us joked on Facebook, we are unsure if the strip clubs and porn shops would also be kicked out, or the giant fucking mall where people can go spend money on useless crap. Or if, under Newt's plan, only the Mooslims have to move.

We are also a bit bemused that government is evil and horrible for conservatives until they want it to step in and make people do what conservatives want. Here in OK, the big bad evil government is now forcing women to undergo an inserted ultrasound and then get a lecture on the results--whether they want it or not. Conservatives want government to stop gay people from having sex and in some parts of the country, would like government to endorse their brand of public prayer.

I suspect that Newt has absolutely no core, and he is doing this because the Tea Party idiots will only support another bigot. But who knows.

I will say this about Kathleen Parker--when she is right, she is really right

Usually, I think she is wrong, but she is one of the few conservatives who sees the idiocy and absolute bankruptcy of Sarah Palin. And here she also suggests that Glenn Beck may not be completely past his addiction problems and is taking them out on all of us. And, in the process, bringing Saint Sarah along for the ride. As he did last week at his MLK mocking festival.

Palin is the mother of a soldier, after all, and God bless her, and him, and all those who have served. Unassailable. As Palin said, whatever else you might say about her, she did raise a combat soldier. "You can't take that away from me."

Who you? Oh, that's right, The Media. Never mind that Beck is one of the richest members of the media. Or that Palin has banked millions primarily because The Media can't get enough of her. But what's an exorcism without a demon? And who better to cast into the nether regions than the guys lugging camera lights?

So nice to see someone call out the idiocy and pure bullshit of Sarah Palin. Few people have made as much money from the very elites she claims to disdain, and actually seems to disdain the very people she claims to champion.

And our Mr. Beck?

Covering all his bases, Beck invoked the ghost of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who stood in the same spot 47 years ago to deliver his most famous speech. Where King had a dream, Beck has a nightmare: "It seems as darkness begins to grow again, faith is in short supply."

Really? When did that happen? Because it seems that people talk about God all the time these days. Even during the heyday of Billy Graham, most Americans could get through 16 or so waking hours without feeling compelled to declare where they stood on the deity.

Boy does that seem right on point. In a day when everyone is being asked if they know what the President believes about God--and demanding that he demonstrate to their satisfaction that he believes like them (even as nothing he could do would convince them), it is hard to hear about how poor Christians are under attack.

Like I said, Kathleen Parker has driven me crazy. But for some reason, she has not been fooled by these idiots. Good for her. Now if only a few more adults will joing in.

Blerg

Feeling the blues today. I am not completely sure why, but there is a lot going on. To be absolutely fair, much of that is actually happening to people other than me, but it hurts when people around you are in pain or struggling. So, today I am thinking of them and hoping they are doing well. We continue to struggle with Streak. While he is moving around much better than he was last week, he is still refusing to eat and pee on his own. Had a nice conversation with the Bootlegger last night and he was of great assistance. Maybe Streak will eat tonight. We will hope.

_______

Anglican sent me this blog post from Ebert, which speaks to the same kind of stuff I wrote about in my post on the GOP and Islamaphobia. I like Ebert and have really respected him over the years, both as a reviewer and as a thinker and as someone who has faced unbelievable adversity and personal pain and done so with dignity.

But after I read the column and some of the comments, I felt depressed. I have been thinking about it all day. Some of the critics were just simply ridiculous--especially those who continue to repeat (as if they have cut and pasted them from a right wing source) that Obama acts like a Muslim and does not act like a Christian. I have no idea what any of that means, and fully suspect those who wrote it don't either. They just hate Obama and don't know how to say it. It comes easiest to simply say that he must not be a Christian, or to call him a Muslim, or a Socialist, or a Marxist or compare him to Hitler.

But some of the others made me think. Many pointed to the left wing anger at Bush and suggested that Ebert was far too selective about his outrage. They pointed to those who called Bush Hitler, or to the MoveOn ad for David Petraeus. Some noted that the left wing loved to mock Bush's intelligence, and still others pointed to the 9-11 Truthers as the analogous grouping to compare with the Republicans today who think that Obama is a Muslim who sides with our enemies.

I have always been iffy about the ad on Petraeus. I didn't see it, to be honest, as vicious as many did. It might have been poorly phrased, and that seems clear, but it was a heartfelt appeal to the General to consider the best interests of the country and our troops. Perhaps that was unseemly to assume that he wouldn't. I can see that. But to a certain extent, it does not compare to where we are because every major Democrat denounced the ad, including our current President.

And, true, there were people on the left who compared Bush to Hitler. One posted a video to MoveOn--and the organization (of which I am a member) yanked that video. There were people at rallies with posters of Bush with a Hitler mustache. I think those were clearly wrong. Any serious person should not have compared the two. But I would suggest that the real problem with the "fascism" charge is not that it was levied at Bush or Obama, but the reasons for that charge. Why did people fear that Bush was leaning that far to the right? Certainly not because they thought (at least any serious person) that Bush would do something approaching the holocaust. But there were things that Bush did that tended toward fascism. The town halls filled with loyal and sycophantic Bushies were creepy, especially when people were arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. His casual approach to wiretapping and warrants, while not fascism, was troublesome. The way he goaded the country into war was very worrisome--with the "with us or against us" theme--that was troubling. And let's not forget that he embraced the very tactics of fascism when he allowed Cheney to create an infrastructure of torture.

None of that excuses calling Bush Hitler. But it seems to me that his policies were troubling to people attuned to history and freedom. And, to be very fair, many of us who feared that have been disturbed by Obama's hesitation to pull back on all of those excesses. True, he banned torture, but we have some very troubling detainment policies, and there has been absolutely no move to rethink the wiretapping or excesses of the Patriot Act.

But back to my point, those are not the reasons that the right calls Obama a Hitler, or a Muslim, or a Socialist. They compared him to Hitler for wanting to extend healthcare to people who didn't have it. That is fucked up. What is more, I don't think that calling a person a moron or mocking their speech patterns is in any way analogous to believing that the sitting president is actually more interested in supporting radical Islam than defending the country and constitution he pledged to defend. If that isn't racism, then perhaps someone can tell me why not.

The one point of comparison that is apt, I think, is the Truthers. That basic argument is one that suggests that Bush would allow or actually cause 9-11 to happen, and so was actively acting to harm America. That is indefensible. But I am pleased to see that while there are far too many Democrats who believe that, none of them are being encouraged to believe that by their elected officials, and I don't see any of our talk personalities suggesting that. Certainly Jon Stewart and Keith Olbermann don't encourage that idea, and I believe the actively mock that belief. The right, on the other hand, has gone out of their way to suggest that Obama might be a Muslim, and the most vocal of the right wing talk show hosts openly accuse him of treason and wanting to destroy America. Hell, the guy who lost the last election said that Obama was trying to force America into bankruptcy on purpose.

I will concede there are idiots and bigots on the left. But I look at the leadership and the major organizations and believe that they have been far more responsible than any on the right.

Anyway. Sorry for the rambling. It has been good for me to write, even if it doesn't read as well as I would like.

Grand Old Islamophobes? --and an update

Streak continues to do incrementally better, but is still not eating or peeing on his own. He is moving better and more engaged with us, but still a ways to go. He is at the vet again today so we can get some nutrients, fluids, and meds in him, and to attend to the peeing issue. Moments, moments, moments.

_____________

Now for the news story that caught my eye.

LB thinks I make too much of race when dealing with conservatives. I don't agree, but understand that point of view. But reading this today makes me again wonder about the power of racism and bigotry among the Republican base. Several polls, not just one, show Republican majorities are either wrong or confused over Obama's faith and believe that it is possible that he sympathizes with Islamic extremists who want to impose Sharia law on the world.

I sent that last poll to some conservative friends and noted that I sincerely hope the polling was problematic. This suggests that a majority of Republicans are that deluded? That out of touch? That willing to believe that the President of the United States sides with our enemies?

As troubling as the bigotry is, I think the bigger issue is the complete disconnect from reality. That one of our major parties can have majorities who believe demonstrable falsehoods is not good. Not even close. I always thought that the percentage of Democrats who believed that Bush caused 9-11 was way too high, and we were never close to a majority of the party--and never did I ever hear a leader from the party vacillate on the issue or encourage Democrats to believe it.

The Republican party appears to have dropped through the looking glass into a Rush/Beck/Palin world where fasehoods are simply manufactured and asserted as reality.

One note. I have hammered Orrin Hatch many times over the years, but have to give him credit for standing up for the Muslim center in NY (even though he misstates it as a "mosque.") Still, considering the silence from supposedly moral and adult Republicans, this is welcome.

Now if he will just start eating on his own

We might be in business. Streak slept here last night for the first time since last Thursday night--and he didn't sleep at all that night, so this was good. He really does seem better, but still doesn't have an appetite and is not peeing on his own. He is at our regular vet for some IV food and hoping that will give him some energy and appetite.

Still some amazing moments. Yesterday afternoon, I visited Streak at the vet and took him out for a brief walk. After, we returned to the vet's back room and I stood around with the vets, techs and assistants (all women) and chatted about Streak. We told stories about Streak and other animals we knew. They know Zorro, the next door black lab who once took me out like a linebacker tackle. They all appreciated that story. We were sharing about our love of animals and affection for them and their people. It was a good thing.

Not only that, but the vet at the emergency clinic who really helped us last Saturday came by earlier that afternoon to check on Streak. There was no requirement that he do that, but it sure made our day.

We are just going day to day, moment to moment. We got to spend some nice time with Streak this morning outside--at least before the mosquitoes drove us back indoors. And we look forward to him sleeping here again tonight. We will keep the faith and enjoy the moments.

Hell, isn't that what we always do?

Update

Picked Streak up from the emergency clinic, paid the (gulp) bill, and took him over to our regular vet. He is still weak and tired, but if we could get him to pee on his own, we could bring him home for some rest.

I am mindful of the roller coaster theme here. We know that we will have more very tough days with him, and that means in the next weeks and months. As Zalm's loss demonstrates, the optimism can come crashing down at any moment. After all, Streak was doing just fine last Wednesday and we were confident he had his full appetite back. One night later, and he was on an IV and barely moving. And like I said, with his cancer, we know that this will not end well.

But, and I am simply trying to figure this out, the moments seem to me to be everything. And that is not just with Streak, but with SOF and my friends and family. For some reason, I think we minimize the small moments to our detriment. We want spectacular and long good times--but miss the moments over coffee, or the nice phone call, or the wonderful "give him a hug for me" from my mom. Thanks, Mom. I needed that in a big way.

I don't know. But I know that seeing my dog walk this morning--wobbly and with his hind leg wrapped--that was a nice moment. It made me smile.

I will take it.

I am seriously beginning to think that Palin and Beck are evil

The Plum Line - Beck and Palin strive for historical immortality

Their willingness to flog the politics of resentment with absolutely no concern for the people who get in the way is destructive and anti-social. Palin's claim that her son's service makes her unassailable is unbelievable. As I have noted before, John Kerry taught us that patriotism only matters when you are a coked out Republican who loves war. If you are a liberal who defends your country--that isn't patriotism.

Hmm, who would have thought that anti-Islamic rhetoric could have bad consequences?

First, we heard about the guy stabbing the Muslim cabbie in NYC. Then we heard about the church in Florida planning a "burn the Koran" day. Now this story about suspected arson on a construction site in Nashville, complete with this lovely quote from a Nashville resident:

"No mosque in Murfreesboro. I don't want it. I don't want them here," Evy Summers told the local CBS affiliate. "Go start their own country overseas somewhere. This is a Christian country. It was based on Christianity."

Wow. Who the hell thought that connecting a cultural center to terrorism simply because both included people who have a connection to Islam could have bad consequences? Who would have thought that when people like Sarah Palin and her amoral colleagues flog this--that some of their less-smart listeners might take this anti-Muslim rhetoric to heart? All of this encouraged by people who pretend to be both Christian and responsible. Greg has a great post on that, including a wonderful takedown of Chuck Colson.

But back to the reality that shouting "hey, all Muslims are somehow responsible for 9-11 even when they explicitly denounce the terrorists" will have bad consequences, Glenn Greenwald has a good take:

"The arsonists undoubtedly will be happy to tell you how much they hate Terrorism. And how there's a War on Christianity underway in the U.S. The harm from these actions are not merely the physical damage they cause, but also the well-grounded fear it imposes on a minority of the American population. If you launch a nationwide, anti-Islamic campaign in Lower Manhattan based on the toxic premise that Muslims generally are responsible for 9/11 -- and spend a decade expanding American wars on one Muslim country after the next -- this is the inevitable, and obviously dangerous, outcome."

A roller coaster ride

We went to see Streak last night and then again this morning. Last night was a little sobering and this morning the same. To be fair, when we have seen him, he has been on his pain meds and a little groggy. Last night he did walk a little with us, and that was nice. This morning, he was pretty subdued, but we still had some nice time with him.

We are going to wait and see how he is tonight and then meet with our regular vet tomorrow. As we learned yesterday, hours can make a difference.



We will see.

Finally, some good news from the vet

Today has been an unbelievable ride. This morning, we went to the emergency clinic (where Streak spent the night) with the full belief we were going to see our buddy for the last time. The reports from the vet had been negative--same, but pain worse, etc--and we had no interest in making him go through another night like the one before.

But when they brought him in, it was clearly a different Streak. His eyes were wide open and alert and focused on us. Still not happy, but a big difference from last night's bleary eyed stare. It didn't take long for us both to say, hey, this is not what we expected. In talking to the vet, we realized that the previous shift was operating from less information and we decided to run some blood work and do an Xray. The xray was because the vet was concerned Streak's abdomen was distended and there might be a tumor there.

Noon, we learned that for the first time in days, Streak's white blood cell count was up. Just a bit ago, we learned that the Xray was negative and that Streak had even walked on his own. Last night, that was inconceivable.

We still have a Streak with cancer. We know that. But we also know that we have enjoyed our moments with Streak, and we have hoped we would have a few more moments. We don't know what the next step is with chemo, and we don't know what that will bring. But we know that we have him for now.

And for tonight, that is enough. Hell, it is more than enough.

Rough night--updated

Streak had a really awful night last night and is at the vet right now getting some fluids and some anti-biotics. The chemo took its toll, we think and his energy is really, really low. At this point we don't know if this is it, or if we will have some more good days. We are hoping for more good days.

So keep a good thought for our little guy today.

____

Had thought that he might be doing better with some fluids, but the vet says he is still really struggling. His white cell count is just so down right now. We are going to take him to an over-night clinic so he doesn't get dehydrated again and see where we are tomorrow.

The Stimulus as Investment

A very interesting look at the diversity of projects included in the stimulus. Timely, as Republicans ramp up their criticism of anything from the government.

But reading through this, you get a sense of two things. One, that Obama is truly a pragmatist--something his critics on either side often miss. And Two, that this is the first time since the Interstate Highway Act or the NASA missions, that we have decided to invest in things that might actually make Americans better off. Not just better off in some vague way, but might allow them to have healthier lives and even possibly more economic opportunity. I truly am amazed that the conservatives I know seem to only value tax cuts and privatization--as if that will accomplish the same thing as a good investment in a long term issue. The Interstate Highway Act did that, and I would argue translated into billions upon billions of private wealth.

Yet it is hard to imagine Republicans of today backing such a bill.

Glenn Beck rewrites civil rights history

As a history educator, this makes me sick. As an American citizen, it makes me want to cry.

Glenn Beck rewrites civil rights history - CNN.com: "'We are on the right side of history! We are on the side of individual freedoms and liberties and, dammit, we will reclaim the civil rights moment. We will take that movement -- because we were the people who did it in the first place.' -- Glenn Beck, on his nationally syndicated radio program, May 26."

We have seen this over the last few years, with people like Beck and other conservatives trying to rewrite the past. And I kind of understand that. After all, with all due respect to my conservative friends, conservatives have fought every major expansion of freedom in American history. They fought against the civil rights movement, and resisted efforts to expand economic and political roles for women.

The problem now is that for most Americans, those are assumed successes. No one outside the Klan really thinks that we should return to public segregation, or wants to push women out of the work place or voting booth. How then do you address the fact that your political movement resisted those advancements?

There seem to be a few options. For some, like Robert Byrd, you acknowledge that your opposition was wrong and you work to atone for that. For others, you simply move on with the knowledge that civil rights was good, and you choose to not address it. And then there are the modern conservatives steeped in the Glenn Beck and David Barton school of history--you just make stuff up. You say that conservatives were the ones who fixed racial and gender discrimination against the opposition of progressives. After all, progressives are actually "socialists" in Beck's world, so are inherently evil.

This is part of the problem we all face. I have to say we would be in a better position had grownup conservatives stood up to this shit when it started rather than looking the other way because of the positive electoral gains. The chickens are coming home, however, and the Republican party is going increasingly toward this anti-intellectual, counter-factual world where the past is just something to restate so you look better.

We will all suffer from this. As I keep saying, when the grownups regain control of the GOP, we will all be in better shape. Then we can go back to arguing about tax rates and the size of government, instead of listening to idiots claim that white conservatives passed the Civil Rights act or that Obama is trying to insert government control into Medicare. Enough with the stupidity, and enough of conservatives looking the other way.

Muslims and America

I had difficulty sleeping last night and so did a lot of thinking until I dropped off. One of my Facebook friends had a conversation about the "mosque" that included this sentiment from one of her friends, "this them using our freedoms to poke us in the eye."

It finally dawned on me that for most Americans who are upset about this "mosque," Muslims are foreigners they distrust. Obvious, perhaps, but a key point. Yet, the Imam that Fox News is up in arms about (Feisal Abdul Rauf) is an Arab American. As I pointed out on FB, "our" freedoms are actually "his" freedoms too.

As I keep saying, this is a sentiment that Bush tried to keep repressed and not encouraged. Perhaps it was because he did a lot of fund raising among Muslim Americans, or maybe it was because he genuinely wanted to curry the favor of moderates. But the conservatives of today have decided that there are no moderate Muslims.

And once again, conservatives wrap themselves in the Flag, claim ownership of 9-11 and of religious freedom, as if the only way others get access is through their good graces.

Anti-Muslim rhetoric exactly what Al Qaeda wants

There are times when I really fear that so many conservatives have failed to even think through the basic logic of their world. Why would you undermine your own legal system in response to terrorism, when you know that the terrorists' goal is to disrupt our, oh right, system of government.

As I wrote the other day, I think the conservative response on this "mosque" has proven that I can no longer expect conservatives to bottom out. There appears to be no low they won't willingly embrace if they think it will win an election or even win a media cycle. Even if that means flogging racism and encouraging it to flourish.

And it isn't just those who might be, as Sherman Alexie jokes, "ambiguously ethnic" who might appear as a Muslim to a crowd predisposed to believe that there are no moderate Muslims and we should fear them all. Those people are in immediate danger. As these hostilities spread and Fox and Palin and others fan the flames, something bad is going to happen at one of those. Hell, I read the other day that a church in Florida is planning to burn Korans. Why? Because they are assholes, I think, but mainstream conservatism has said that we can, in fact, tar all Muslims with the extremists.

But as I started to say, it isn't just those who might look foreign or Muslim who need to fear this, but our entire national security apparatus. As this piece suggests, true radicals are gleefully telling possible recruits "we told you so, Americans hate Muslims" and are trying to recruit Americans who are displaced by this. Or moderates who want very much to believe that we are not anti-Muslim.

So to those who wrap themselves in the flag and brag of their patriotism while they do this, I say you are an idiot and a fool. You undermine our very safety and the safety of your fellow man.

And finally, since so many of the people who have told me that the "mosque" should move, and who seem to think that Palin is some kind of "moral values" maven, I remind them that someone somewhere noted that it was super easy to love your friends and hate your enemies.

Gee, I wonder who that was?

A must see from Jon Stewart

For the record, I think the people on Fox can be both evil and stupid.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

WWJD anyway?

Why, of course, he would fly a flag to celebrate his racism. This, of course, courtesy of one of my idiot friends from high school. I pointed out in the comment that it was neither a mosque nor at ground zero. I expect to be unfriended and will be glad.

Monday anger

First day of class, and a Monday, so I am in a mood. Added to that, and Streak is not feeling well this morning. That makes me unhappy. I know this is par for the course, but it still sucks. He has shown some appetite, so we are hopeful that this will pass.

On that note, btw, thanks to everyone who has commented or emailed me about Streak. The community of friends helps lighten the load, and I can't tell you how much we have appreciated the nice words.

_____


But to the central point eating at me this morning. I read this story on NPR about Anti-Islamic Rhetoric On The Rise and felt a little sick. I think we all expected a rise of anti-Islamic sentiment after 9-11, but it didn't happen as bad as we feared because, I now see, for one key figure. George Bush didn't allow the Republican party to openly embrace racism. I still think he was a terrible President, but he may be the best the party can provide right now.

Look at how the rest of the GOP is using this "mosque" story to gin up bigotry and racism. There is really no other way to look at it, it seems to me. This is a major party stepping out and openly embracing racism and bigotry. Not fighting it, not trying to negotiate with the racists in its midsts, but openly flogging it. That is beyond reprehensible and beyond irresponsible. I think it might, in fact, be an act of evil. Note, I am not calling these individual Republicans evil people. But when Sarah Palin constantly pushes the falsehood that this is either a mosque or at "ground zero" she does so to encourage anti-muslim sentiment--and that is an evil act.

I used to think that the Republican party was filled with a bunch of mostly reasonable people with a few outliers. I am starting to doubt that as I see them turn right and practically don the white hoods in celebration. And when they give me their "Christian" message, I throw up a little in my mouth.

We are way past the time for the grownups to step up.

Musing about grief

This morning has been rough. It is better now, but this morning was the first time that Streak really seemed sick. Perfectly understandable given the chemo he received yesterday, but it hit me very hard this morning. Luckily our neighbors were around and have gone through the same thing--they talked us down. Well, really talked me down. SOF was really strong this morning.

But all of this has me thinking about grief and what exactly I am grieving. Of course there is the obvious of losing a friend of 13 + years, and I get that. It might be obvious to others, but it struck me the other day that much of my grief over Streak was the lost past and the memories of me, SOF, Alafair, and him together. I remember him running with great abandon and reckless ease. I always referred to him as one of the most athletic dogs I have ever known. Fast, quick, and able to jump and balance--had he a decent trainer for a friend instead of me, he might have learned a few more tricks. Now I see him struggling (and this was before his diagnosis) to negotiate the hardwood floors. I miss those times. Those things are already gone, mind you, reminding me of a John Fullbright song with lyrics close to "cherish these moments, they are already leaving." Regardless of Streak's current condition, in other words, a big part of my grief is about what he represents--where we were when he joined us, and the memories we have in common. As SOF said in her great comment, this little guy has done more than just be our friend, he has pushed us out into the neighborhood to meet and greet. We know so many more people who live around us because of our dogs. Inadvertently, through this blog, Streak has pushed me out into the broader world and allowed me to meet so many of you who read here.

There is some good news there, I think, though it is hard to see when he is struggling. If I can make sense of what has been lost, and what hasn't, I think I will be better for it. Knowing that some of those issues of grief will occur even if Streak were to have a miraculous healing takes some of the pressure off. And looking at the many positives that are embedded in those memories makes them less painful. And the tough parts of those memories will be tough regardless.

Not that there won't be many more tough moments. That is part of life. But maybe if I can examine grief a little more, that will be good for me.

Anyway. Hope you are all well. Hug your family members--no matter how many legs they have, and enjoy your friends and neighbors.

A post I didn't want to write

When I started this blog, I whimsically named it after my dog. I am not sure I thought I would keep blogging, but here we are 6 years later. I started out blogging as "Streak's Friend" and then morphed into just using his name. He didn't seem to mind.

Over the weekend, we noticed a lump and took him into the vet Monday morning. She was pretty sure it was a lymphoma, and this morning I received confirmation of that. We will start some chemo tomorrow morning and the best-case scenario is somewhere around 6 months of good time. He is nearly 14, and we knew this wouldn't last forever.

I always struggle with this situation. Part of it is that I have friends struggling with illness or who have lost people close to them. I have lost several relatives of late and others are ill. Part of it is growing up in a ranching family where animals came and went. So I struggle with my grief for my dogs, even though they are clearly part of SOF and my family. We spend more time with them than any other beings. I know for many readers, I don't have to justify my grief here, but I also want to show a little perspective. 14 is pretty good for a dog, and we have been lucky to have him this long.

Last fall, Streak had some really weird episodes of screaming as he awoke. We thought we were going to lose him then. When he improved and actually returned to normal, SOF referred to it as the "bonus round." And we have enjoyed the bonus time with him--I can honestly say that. Not a day or week has gone by that we haven't remarked that we are lucky to have our little devoted buddy with us. He loves us "fiercely" (as a friend said), and we love him right back. I think he has taught us some pretty good life lessons.

The good news is that we don't have to say goodbye to him today. We get more bonus days. And we will enjoy them. But I am also very sad today.

Fareed Zakaria--a voice of reason on the NY mosque

Fareed Zakaria: Build the Ground Zero Mosque - Newsweek. Not surprisingly, Zakaria makes a strong argument for the mosque as exactly what our policy since 9-11 has attempted--to encourage moderation.

I am thoroughly disgusted by the Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich bigotry on this issue. It is clearly an attempt to make political points by playing on American fears of all things Muslim, and is exactly the kind of technique that demagogues like, rather than leaders. Or hell, in all honesty, I think if Bush were still in office, he would say the same thing as Obama did--that the mosque should be built because we are a nation who believes in religious freedom.

But tell that to the Republican party busy running off a cliff in an effort to out-conservative their fellow Republicans. I honestly expect them to call for forced deportation of all Mexicans and Muslims, or even to call for the creation of internment camps until the end of the war on terror. That is the direction they are headed, rather than the moderate and tolerant tack to the middle.

Obama is calling on us to be better people. The Republican leadership is asking us to give into our fears and become lesser people and a lesser nation.

"Don't NAACP Me"

Been thinking about race today. First, while listening to an NPR show (Here and Now), heard a great interview with Dr. Marybeth Gasman about her experiences as a white professor who studies African American studies and the fact that she finds that whites ask questions about blacks that they would not ask a black professor. Very interesting stuff. Here and Now introduced the segment with the story about Dr. Laura deciding that she could say the "n" word as many times as she wanted because, that is what you hear from black rappers on HBO all the time.

I really didn't know that Dr. Laura was still on the air. Her ignorance on this issue was as clear as her ignorance on, well, just about every other issue. White privilege blinds so many people. They can't even see the issue of race clearly, because, while they understand that racism is wrong, they somehow think that it is mostly an issue of the past.

Dr. Gasman (with a real PhD in her field, as opposed to Dr. Laura's in an unrelated field) addressed many of these issues in a very cogent and thoughtful way. The most shocking for me, besides the common and rather ignorant question of "why would a white person study African American studies" was a white person who said that he didn't "get" why African American boys might find Obama's election empowering.

Seriously, dude? I can't think of a better example of white privilege than that--that white males can't even consider that every other President looks more like them than any black youth, yet they can't see the disconnect.

As many have noted, the problem with America right now is that there are no racists--or that is how it is framed. Racism has been redefined in many minds to the virulent Klan member shouting epithets. As a well-behaved white person, I am supposed to believe I am above racism? So many of my friends seem to think they are. I am less convinced--both of their racial consciousness and my own. I see my own racism when my mind goes to stereotypes when I see someone of color. I know that when my brain wants to be surprised at the well-spoken African American woman at the store, or when that same brain reaches for the door lock when I see that large hispanic male at the corner.

My sense is that most conservatives, and most Americans, just want to jump past the race conversation. They really don't want to look at how race has framed our entire history. It has always called to mind Seinfeld's Kramer when he decided to stop talking. His vow of silence ended a few seconds later when he hit his knee, but he responded, "starting now!"

Most conservatives want to erase the past, or lump it all into some bad story they don't want to read. Racism, then, becomes a thing only of the past rather than something we all struggle with. We should, in their thinking, live in a color-blind world where race is meaningless, as if the entire history of our country doesn't reveal that as a lie.

I think most whites in this country better start thinking about race, because in the next 50 years they are going to learn to live a different existence--as a minority. Perhaps their fear comes from the realization that for most of our history, whites in America didn't treat minorities very well, and they fear that when it is their turn, they will be treated as the minorities of the past. I don't think that is true, but all the more reason to be curious about other cultures and applaud those who work to break down barriers.

Think of that the next time you see a Tea Partier with a "send Obama back to Africa" sign, or watch Sarah Palin speak on the mosque in New York. Or perhaps we should remember a verse from the Christian Bible about treating others as you would want to be treated.

Fascinating look at Gingrich and what is wrong with our politics

And a disturbing refresher of some things I had forgotten, including his attack on Speaker Jim Wright, and his ability and willingness to demonize his enemies:

"He became a master of wedge issues, calling Democrats unpatriotic, accusing them of sympathizing with communists, even blaming them for Woody Allen's affair with Soon-Yi and Susan Smith's murder of her children in South Carolina. To badger the moderates in his own party, he called Bob Dole the 'tax collector for the welfare state' and threatened House Minority Leader Bob Michel of Illinois with extinction."

Of course, every Republican has taken after Gingrich and has decided that it is not only acceptable to call Democrats unAmerican, but expected.

But some of the most interesting stuff comes from his second wife--the one he was having an affair with when he was bashing Clinton for his lack of values. She notes that he asked her to marry him before he had even gotten a divorce from his first wife--the one that he delivered divorce papers in her hospital bed. Turns out, that when he left his second wife, he did so in the same pattern.

She called a minister they both trusted. He came over to the house the next day and worked with them the whole weekend, but Gingrich just kept saying she was a Jaguar and all he wanted was a Chevrolet. " 'I can't handle a Jaguar right now.' He said that many times. 'All I want is a Chevrolet.' "

He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

Amazing. The people lecturing us on values, remember?

He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

This man is a sociopath.

Our divided country

I recently had a very painful exchange with a distant relative. Actually not a blood relative of mine, but family. Or so I thought. I had a lot of respect for him--even as I disagreed on many, many, many issues. He served in the military and with distinction, and that always earned him some respect on my part. Hell, I thought I treated him with respect the entire time. Even when he espoused ideas I found problematic.

During the Bush years, we were able to talk. He grudgingly acknowledged some issues with Bush, and graciously acknowledged that I had been closer to the truth on Colin Powell's fractured relationship with the Bush/Cheney people.

But then the 2008 election and President Obama, and the relationship dried up. At first, I just thought it was a job and location change for him. But after some prodding, he emailed me the other day to tell me that he hadn't maintained the email discussions because, well, read it:

have not continued our dialog because I know I would feel discouraged if, after what has been happening to our country for the past year+, you are still endorsing Obama's policies and our steady march toward socialism, corruption and the rending of our Constitution. If I am wrong about that, please let me know.

I loved the baited and leading questions, and the way that he took cheap shots at anyone who supported Obama.

(Side note, can anyone explain where the "corruption" meme comes from? I understand the charge of socialism, even though I think it is completely wrong. But where do they get the idea that Obama is corrupt? Or that he is "rending the Constitution?" I guess that last part may come from the Republican suggestion to have an insurance mandate, but where is the corruption? Not saying that there isn't some in the administration. Every administration has some bad apples, and that will come out. But this guy was a big Bush supporter and you would have to agree that there was a tremendous amount of corruption in that admin, most notably in the regulatory agency overseeing mines and drilling.)

Anyway, his response was obviously disheartening. I had tried to maintain a civil discourse only to be told that if I supported Obama I was against the constitution. Someone else in his family had said that of course the President deserved respect, but not Socialists, so Obama was beneath respect. And the upshot was that a relationship that I thought had some measure of mutual respect was only a one-way street. I wasn't family (distant or not), but merely a liberal--and now that Obama was president, I deserved the same response: derision and disrespect.

I disliked former President Bush as much as anyone around me. I thought (and think) that he was in over his head and hopelessly incompetent for this high of a job. I think he allowed truly sociopathic people to get us into two wars and to undermine much of our social safety net and regulatory system. But I tried, really, really hard, to engage with Bush supporters in person and through email with a modicum of respect. I will concede that I sometimes lost my temper, and often used my blog to vent, but I tried. I don't even see those on the far right as trying. And that makes me sad.

Senator Ted Stevens killed in plane crash

I am sure everyone has seen the news now, but former Senator Stevens has been confirmed as one of the fatalities from a plane crash in Alaska. I could not stand that man and thought him to be one of the more toxic members of the GOP when he was in office, but I hate to see these kinds of events. I think, reading more about Stevens, that he had made some pretty important contributions in his earlier days, but had become old, bitter and corrupt. It happens.

Several other people died, of course, and their names are not as notable. I am sorry for them and their families. I was also thinking, when I saw this, of other crashes. I remember like yesterday the plane crash that devastated the progressive community when Paul Wellstone died. I was also thinking of some friends of mine who used to teach school in Alaska. They often tell how they flew everywhere. Stevens was headed to a cabin when his plane went down. This kind of thing happens up there.

I am sad for those who grieve today.

Back

And you didn't even know I was gone, did you? Heh. Well, I was. Went down to Texas to an acoustic music camp where I learned from some of the best mandolin players I have ever heard. Part of the attraction of this kind of camp is really the same reason I like to go to small venues--because you can talk to some really great musicians and they are usually generous about their tricks of the trade.

Anyway. Back in town and about to go listen to some live music--this time some friends of ours.

Meanwhile, I saw this NYT story on the mosque controversy that includes one two year study that suggests that American mosques help Americanize Muslims and actually discourage violence and radicalism. One study, to be sure, but an interesting voice in the middle of what seems to be blatantly bigoted political activism from the right. I am afraid that the right is far more racist than we feared, and they seem to have not found their bottom yet.

Anyway. Hope the rest of you are doing well and that it is cooler where ever you are.

When Christianity meets Marketing

I just don't think I can say it better than Greg has here:

Sacrifice means petty moments of self-denial or sponsoring a kid for $30 a month. Salvation means Jesus died for me so I won't go to hell, or so I will go to heaven. Holiness is now rigid moralism, especially about things that aren't a problem for me: homosexuality, abortion, porn, alcoholism, etc., never injustice, envy, lust, greed, crass materialism, gossip, indifference to the world's suffering, etc. The redefinition of every word in the common Christian lexicon to fit the marketing strategies of church growth methodology ensures that the message remains consistent with the simplistic assertions, and also ensures that any theologizing about those assertions is met with suspicion and fear at best, anger and violence at worst. The consensus, using the same methodology MTV and radio consolidation used to destroy music, goes national, the ignorance is shared, the status quo is guarded, and everyone feels so fucking Christian.

What happens when your professed beliefs are opposite of how you act?

Greg's great posts continue with this one and this great sentence:

"Schaefferites use the vocabulary of Christianity with the grammar of Straussian politics."

Contradictions.

I am reading Jackson Lears Rebirth of a Nation and the two first chapters have spurred thought in this direction. His first is about the American embrace of the redemptive nature of violence, which is a troubling historical theme in American history. I was stunned to read of a historian from the late 1880s, writing about the Pequot war, who noted--as Lears put it--that "when fighting savages, one had to fight savagely." Of course, I could not read that line and not think about the conservative defense of torture.

His second chapter, though, gets into that very American theme of greed and opportunity, and Lears points to the central contradiction between the core American Protestant beliefs and the engine of capitalism. After all, frugality, hard work, and self-sufficiency were not inherently compatible with speculative capitalism, or the magic of making money out of simply money--not out of some hard physical labor. Here, it seems was the quintessential conflict between the supposed Christian beliefs (if the blood soaked Civil War had not already raised that, btw) and the engine of the future. Rockefeller himself claimed that God had given him his money, but his entire economic fortune was built on deceit and manipulation. His partner's motto? "Do unto others as they would do unto you--and do it first."

Not Christian.

And there is the contradiction I continue to struggle with. Whereas many of my blog friends have simply walked away from Christianity--and I respect that, btw--I am unable to do so. I still believe in some deep idea of morality and principle--the phrase "WWJD" annoyed me because of the obvious market manipulation, but the idea was a valid and poignant one. (One, that clearly, the WWJD bracelet wearers who voted for Bush's torture didn't even see.)

Reading this book reminds me of so many current issues. Christians cheering war while waving the Bible. Or the unbelievable manipulation and moral vacuousness of the recent market scams that nearly brought our economy down. Nothing moral about it, but we are a long way from where our conservative Christian community could criticize in strong terms such immorality. Christianity and capitalism have become so intertwined that I dare say they can't see where one ends and the other begins. This, of course, is also not new, as the "Man Nobody Knows" of the 1920s detailed the Christ as capitalist lion tamer.

But the fact that it isn't new doesn't help. It seems to have so filtered into society that modern Christians somehow could confuse basic capitalist beliefs with the teachings of Christ.

Hell, I don't know what to believe any longer. But I know that this level of contradiction is hard to sustain.

Anyway....

Thursday stuff--Republicans getting crazier, and Obama Administration disappoints

Graham now wants to remove citizenship by birth. Oh, and remember, he was the one that everyone called one of the moderate and reasonable ones.

And can anyone explain this to me? The people who spend the most time talking about the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution and the original intent, are the ones who want to throw out the 14th Amendment because they are anti-immigrant? Never mind that we need immigrants to keep pace and maintain our economic viability. Nah. If it helps rile up the base, let's do it.

And because many people just consider me a blind Democrat liberal commie who worships Obama, let me add this little troubling tidbit. Yglesias notes that the admin has further loosened the kinds of actions that the FBI can do without a warrant to include internet activity. I am really unsure why, in the age of FISA that we need to undermine our constitutional protections further. And this is just the kind of shit that drove me crazy under Bush. I think it is time to write a letter. Perhaps if liberals stand up to Obama on this, we might get somewhere. Can't exactly expect conservatives to care about the FBI looking in our browser history.

Ruth Marcus - Why Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire

Ruth Marcus - Why Congress should let the Bush tax cuts expire:

"The modern Republican argument about taxes seems to boil down to two principles, both misguided: Taxes can be reduced, but they can never be allowed to go up. And whatever level taxes are at, they are too high.

Think back to the beginning of the Bush administration tax cuts. It seems almost impossible to believe, but the argument then was that the budget surplus was too large."

I think most Republicans I know are honest, but I also don't think that they have actually thought this through. Marcus gets to what I noted the other day. The argument around tax cuts is not intellectually consistent, and until the right gets some basic consistency, I think they should be dismissed on this issue.

Greg is back with part 3

A Flawed Consensus, Part 3: How Ichabod Crane Keeps Getting His Ass Kicked - the parish: "Sacred texts are not brain-dumped into practitioners by the gods above; they mus

t be read, interpreted, discussed, and applied in a community. The fundamentalist errors are to believe that God 'wrote' the book, and that the English is plain enough for anyone to understand--ironically, this despite the proliferation of denominations based on verse-splitting."

The political genius of supply-side economics

England's Martin Wolf has a good take on the state of our political dialogue on economic policy. I read this and thought of the ongoing conversation over at ATK, where one person has boldly defended the Bush economic policy while blaming all the economic troubles on the Democrats taking over the house in 2006. It is funny. One party can control the WH, and both houses for 6 years (or most of that 6 years) but anything bad that occurs after is not their fault.

I am increasingly convinced that most Republicans have been sold a bill of goods. Wolf makes a good case for this in his piece and notes that Republicans moved from being the party of a balanced budget to being the party of tax cuts.

The political genius of this idea is evident. Supply-side economics transformed Republicans from a minority party into a majority party. It allowed them to promise lower taxes, lower deficits and, in effect, unchanged spending. Why should people not like this combination? Who does not like a free lunch?

How did supply-side economics bring these benefits? First, it allowed conservatives to ignore deficits. They could argue that, whatever the impact of the tax cuts in the short run, they would bring the budget back into balance, in the longer run. Second, the theory gave an economic justification – the argument from incentives - for lowering taxes on politically important supporters. Finally, if deficits did not, in fact, disappear, conservatives could fall back on the “starve the beast” theory: deficits would create a fiscal crisis that would force the government to cut spending and even destroy the hated welfare state.

It is a brilliant political strategy. Assure the American people that their deficit will go away as long as you cut taxes for the super rich. Sure, you throw a bone to the middle class, though you don't note that while their federal taxes will go down slightly, their local and state taxes will probably go up--or they will see a steady decline in services. College tuition will continue to climb, and more and more fees and licenses will be regressively taxed.

But you don't tell them that. Nor do you tell them that you probably will not come close to cutting any major budget items. You will make it harder on scientists looking for grants, and will demonize poor people and minorities, but will not actually cut the budget in any meaningful way. But you will continue to sell them the lie that reducing taxes will eventually increase revenues to the point that the budget will be balanced. All through magic.

And it doesn't matter the state of the economy, the existing tax rate, or the state of the deficit. Tax cuts are magical. They will fix whatever economic problem you have, even when lower tax revenues are one of your problems. Republicans have turned into a caricature of themselves and remind me of the Far Side cartoon about the vet wing for horses. Every illness or injury has the same treatment: shoot them.

Hell, if you think about it, Republicans haven't even been consistent on this argument. In 2000, they justified a tax cut because of the surplus. The argument was that the government had too much of our money, so they had to give us some back. Wouldn't that have theoretically increased the surplus? Yeah, I realize 9-11, two unfunded wars, and Medicare Part D didn't help, but in 2000 I assume most republicans didn't know about those huge expenditures. If tax cuts always increase revenue, wouldn't that have been the argument? But it wasn't.

It just became that when the deficit ballooned and the economy tanked. Then tax cuts weren't because the government didn't have too much money but because we needed to stimulate the economy and then the tax revenues would once again rise.

Bill of freaking goods. And Democrats are expected to pay the bill and take responsibility. Meanwhile Republicans promise to return to the good old days when people get their free lunch--well, it would be free except for those damn minorities who are always taking your stuff.

Sigh.

Race in America

Having an ongoing conversation on this whole Tea Party phenomenon. Me and the rest of the country. I have one friend who has suggested that liberals have responded too fervently to the Tea Party, and thus allowed them to gain prominence. Another thinks that the anger was always there, and that the Glenn Becks and Sarah Palin are just using and exploiting that anger.

I have to say that I think there is something else going on. I think there is a deep seated fear that white protestants are losing their favored place in our society. I am the first to admit that this anger would be there if Hillary had won instead of Barack, but have to believe that some of this is still about race. Had Hillary won, it would have just been more about non-traditional women winning out, or about those non-protestants who are taking over. But with Obama it is about race, and non-traditional Christianity.

I don't watch Rachel Maddow that regularly, but thought this was a pretty good take. Of course she is pulling together a lot of things and assuming motives. But I don't think she is far off. Students of history will know that this phenomenon has long legs. One interpretation of Bacon's Rebellion was that the elites needed to find a way to allow poor, landless, whites keep their guns, but give them a way to have a little more status without giving them land or power. It was at this point that Virginians decided to opt more for lifetime slavery v. short term indentured servanthood. We saw that same process repeated in the lead up to the Civil War when Southern elites told poor white farmers that the Yankees wanted to take away their chance at land and success and would give that land to the slaves. Then poor whites would be at the bottom instead of being able to look down on enslaved Africans. In the post Reconstruction south, when poor white farmers started to coalesce with poor black farmers in some populist movements and even politically, we saw a rise of segregation and Jim Crowism.

Throughout this history, whites have been warned to be afraid of non-whites in many forms. Native and black men were supposedly sexual predators, and so supposed sexual contact or even bad intentions became the justification for lynchings and massacres. Perhaps my historian colleagues can help flesh this out, but the story is an old and sordid one. I think Rachel is connecting that to the current way that conservatives on Fox and talk radio are talking about race, and I think she is on to something. That is not to say that liberals and civil rights' activists have not made missteps. Of course they have and can. But the record is heavily weighted to the other side.

Anyway. Check it out and let me know what you think. Oh, and there are some new gadgets that Blogger made available. Hvae to see how they work.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From Evangelicalism to Fundamentalism

I think I have been rather dense on the difference, and am really glad that Greg is talking about this transformation. He suggests that the

"evangelical church is no longer evangelical; it's largely fundamentalist, and it's happened because certain ministries were able to build a pseudo-theological consensus by emphasizing minutiae but making them appear cardinal doctrines."

I think there is something there. I also wonder if there isn't a group of churches who have followed the simplistic theology model, but are not technically fundamentalist either. If that makes any sense.

On the right and their experts

Greg has been on a tear of late, and this is another good post on the problems of the theological right here in Oklahoma and elsewhere:

"The experts aren't experts, and so they've passed their non-expertise onto the masses, and it isn't just the Church. Beck is doing the same thing in the political realm. One of the absolutely legitimate points I took from Rapture Ready is that anything banal, crass, or pitiful in Christian culture has a reflection or is a reflection of the same reality in non-Christian culture. I guess that means it's a reflection of the human tendency toward the simplistic, crass, over-generalized, and banal. Make it simple. They'll buy it, even salvation."

I have noticed this tendency among the right to anoint "experts" who's only expertise is that they support the conventional wisdom of the right. Engineers who oppose evolution become scholarly experts--even though their expertise has nothing to do with biology. In the same post, Greg notes an article he penned on this movement and he connects this expertise issue to the faux historian David Barton. (You might even recognize the historian Greg contacted to refute Barton.) Barton has no training as a historian, yet has become someone who Mike Huckabee referred to as America's best historian. Please.

But the point is that this fake expertise gives many on the right a plausible (to them) source to confirm their beliefs. I know they believe that the left does the same thing, and that is sometimes true. But in history, it is not. And those of us who actually work in or around the field know it. We know how much historical conclusions are challenged and battled. We know the process of getting something published through peer review. We know the examination on sources and skepticism to new interpretations. Those processes are, as Greg noted, completely gone in a world that has gone to the simple.

I am not sure what to think of the Christian faith today

And yeah, I know that is a general statement. But it is where I am right now. Just not sure what to make of some of this stuff. Take this story from CNN where Ed Young Jr., and many other "pastors" are spending millions of dollars to ad technology such as the use of holograms to beam, well, themselves into other churches, because that will help them "reach" more. More what, I have no clue. Greg has a few choice words for this idiocy, including the laughable notion that virtual representation is the same as "being there."

If that is Christianity, I am really not interested.

And it isn't just that. I know Christians who say they oppose torture, but the fact that their party supports torture and even cheers and brags about it (see George Bush), will do nothing to dissuade them from voting for the Republicans. I am still not sure how that works. If torture is evil, and the Republicans openly embrace it, then I am not sure how moral people vote for those Republicans. I am just being honest here. I would appreciate some clarity on that one, btw, as I continue to struggle with it.

And while less problematic, I am still also struggling with how so many of my conservative Christian friends talk about prayer. When someone survives a serious accident, and then attributes all of that to prayer, I ask myself about those who's outcome is not as good. Did they not pray hard enough? Or recruit enough people? Why is it that when the outcome is good, it is proof that God answers prayer, but when the outcome is bad, it is proof that we just don't understand God? We understand him just fine when he does what we want.

Just not sure what to think with those kinds of disconnects. Christians who conflate huge churches with some kind of theological "goodness," or those who see torture as "bad" but not bad enough to do anything about it. Or those who give me a bizarre popular vote version of God.

I don't get it.

Sarah Palin Calls On 'Peaceful Muslims' To 'Refudiate' Ground Zero Mosque

And then defends the use of the word "refudiate." Actually, she claims that language changes all the time, and that "Shakespeare liked to coin new words too."

Andy Borowitz has a great take: Palin Says Refudiate Appears in Fictionary: Calls Critics Incohecent. Would be funny if she wasn't really that dumb.

The fact that this woman came so close to the Oval office in 2008 is something that should scare the crap out of every thinking American. The fact that she is still so popular among far right Christians and conservatives is just sad.

Tipping point question part 2

My first post has turned into a discussion about the role of government and the issue of race. Neither are bad discussions, and I hope we continue them, but I am still looking for an answer to the question about when the numbers suggest systemic problems v. individual ineptitude? Is it as simple as the bell curve idea I floated about class grades?

Anyone? At what percentage point does failure suggest the system has failed, or the rules were incorrect?

Tipping point question

Here is a question from many of my discussions with conservatives regarding individual responsibility v. some kind of systemic issue (actually often a false choice, btw). It comes from what seems like a conservative emphasis on personal responsibility and a denial of any kind of systemic problems in our financial (or other) area.

Say you give 100 people loans. If only 6 of those 100 fail to repay, that would easily be written off as their individual failure, right? If you had a 94% repayment rate, you would have to conclude that the terms of the loan were fair and the arrangement was set up correctly or fairly.

But what is the tipping point where you have to question the setup? If 30% fail to repay? If I had 30% fail my class, I would probably rethink my approach.

I ask, because I think most conservatives I speak to approach most of our broader economic issues solely from a personal responsibility approach, and do not want to question the system around those individuals. As I said above, I think there is often a gray area besides choosing between those two options. The criminal justice system is a good example. If a high percentage of African American men end up in jail, it might be a combination of both, right? Doesn't excuse the individual criminal acts that get them arrested, but might point to a system that is not doing a good job of addressing race, class, or education?

This also comes out of this previous discussion about the middle class. I believe firmly there are things that we as a government (remembering that the government is us in our system) to better encourage success and stability. My conservative friends tend to look at the decline in social mobility, or wage stagnation, or lack of individual savings--and chalk all of those up to individual people failing to make good decisions. I don't deny that, but also think there is something systemic that has encouraged debt and the other negative things we see.

The Bible, the Rule of Law, and Immigration

Just saw this story on Congressmen arguing about what the Bible has to say about Immigration reform. Perhaps we can set aside the concern, for now, that we have elected members of our secular government trying to argue that their reading of the Bible is how we should proceed on this issue. But I found it quite interesting how many of those conservatives read the Bible.

But Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Judiciary Committee's top Republican, repeatedly cited passages from the Bible in support of a stronger crackdown on illegal immigration.

"The Bible contains numerous passages that support the rule of law," he asserted. "The scriptures clearly indicate that God charges civil authorities
with preserving order, protecting citizens and punishing wrongdoers."

Smith cited, among other things, Romans 13: "Let every person be subject to governing authorities."

Just wondering, do you think that Lamar Smith has cited those passages when Tea Party activists have urged people to not obey the new healthcare law?

As you know, I have been toying with this idea of empathy, and that the lack of empathy from the right explains a lot of their policy solutions, but also reveals strong problems with their reading of the Bible. Smith addressed this

Addressing a passage from Matthew 25 about caring for "the least of these my brothers," Smith contended that it "advocates individual acts of kindness (but) does not mandate a public policy."

I see this a lot from conservatives, and don't completely disagree. But I would suggest that it allows them to disconnect their business and political decisions from their church life. Through their church, they can support their food kitchen and direct aid to the poor (good things, btw), but the disconnect allows them to vote for policies that make things harder on those same poor, or even pushes more into that population. That artificial divide lacks moral consistency.

Steve King (Idiot, Iowa), also weighed in on this issue:

King noted approvingly that "in the land of the Bible the leaders of today's Israel (have) built border fences to protect their citizens from terrorists or illegal job seekers alike."

There is a "greater and more immediate" moral obligation to take care of
U.S. citizens first, he said.

On this, I hate equating Netanyahu's government with the ancient Israelites, and still think that is a faulty connection, but I was struck most by his second statement about our first moral priorities being to take care of our own. On one hand, I don't necessarily personally disagree, if, of course, I believed that Steve King or Lamar Smith wanted to actually help Americans who are poor or brown skinned. But at a broader point, and since they are quoting from the Bible here or using it as their justification, is that consistent with Christianity? Is it consistent to say that you must take care of your own first and then others? I am not sure it is.

Yet another Republican declaring up is down

Or in this case, that down is actually up. Slactivist has a great take on the insanity of the Republican running for governor in Pennsylvania and another example of a Republican simply denying reality. I know I am frustrated today, but I have had it with these people. It is as if everyone of them has become a Karl Rove follower over night and learned that facts don't matter--just declare the reality you want.

It works for just about every aspect of Republican life, as I noted in the other post. Climate change, evolution, and we could add American history to that list--are all subject to the reality you want it to be. Don't like the story of slavery and segregation? Simply relegate it to the back pages.

Here, Corbett continues the Republican attack on the unemployed. It has to be their fault, after all. If they were just better workers, or not so lazy, or not so greedy, they would have a job, and in fact, giving them unemployment benefits so they can stay in their house while they look for non-existent jobs--that is, to a Republican, repugnant. Like rescuing a puppy, or caring for creation.

I met with a former student yesterday who is interested in history grad school. I spent the better part of an hour trying to talk him out of that. :) Well, kind of. But he told me at the beginning that he had chosen to stay in town with the idea that he would pick up a summer job while he thought about grad school. He said that he just assumed he could find an hourly job somewhere. "Even Target isn't hiring," he told me. "What is wrong when even Target isn't hiring at minimum wage?"

But for the Republicans, this all false. There are loads of jobs out there waiting to be filled. Only Republicans with jobs are hard working and honest and moral. Only those with money deserve their money. The rest can go screw.

I don't know whether Tom Corbett is such a fool himself, or if he has simply made the political calculation that a majority of Pennsylvania voters might be attracted to such foolishness and that there are votes to be won by appealing to the lesser demons of our nature. After all, there are far more people who are afraid of becoming unemployed than there are people who are currently unemployed -- blame the jobless for their plight and you can reassure those frightened others that they don't have to be frightened of earning the sad fate of those lazy, inferior others.

So it's possible that Tom Corbett is a cynical nurturer of nastiness rather than just a fearful, ignorant fool himself.

But either way, there's something very, very wrong with this man.

There is something very wrong with his party too.

It's Unanimous! GOP Says Screw the Unemployed

This is just so fucking ridiculous, I can't stand it. Top GOP leaders all agree with Kyl that they won't support unemployment extensions, but have no interest in off-setting tax cuts for the rich.

I think being a Republican these days must mean that you completely ignore reality on a daily basis. And you are told that if you don't like something, you simply ignore any evidence of that thing. Don't like evolution? Easy. Just ignore and deny. Not sure what to do about climate change? Simple. Just deny that it exists.

And when you are hell-bent to make sure that the wealthiest Americans continue to do better while the poor fall farther behind, you simply deny that tax cuts cost money. You just deny it. You continue to insist that cutting taxes magically increases revenue at all times. Never, never, never never fucking admit that cutting taxes on the rich is anything but good.

I am beginning to think these GOP people are sociopaths. What else do you say to people who cause this kind of carnage and then deny it and want to do more?

Your GOP crazy for the day

Otherwise known as the regular GOP. First, from prostitute aficionado David Vitter is his support for "birther" lawsuits. Yes, because this is just a fringe issue, not something that a sitting US Senator would endorse. Right. Because the GOP is perfectly reasonable and besides, the Democrats are just as bad.

Ok.

How about This idiot, who says that Obama and "big gummint" make it harder for people to find the lord.

Let's not forget Sharon Angle from Nevada, saying that the response to the BP oil spill is to have less regulation. That's right. Less.

And how about Arizona Senator Jon Kyl? He thinks that we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of the impact on the deficit. Yeah, the deficit. The same one that is used to block unemployment relief for the hated unemployed. But tax breaks for the rich, according to Kyl, don't have to be offset or paid for. They are just and right.

The GOP is so completely out of its collective mind, I really question the sanity of those who continue to support this party. You will have to do some talking to convince me that you are voting for sane and reasonable people. Because you are not.

Torture as Bellwether*

I continue to struggle with the issue of torture, and have been trying to figure out why that particular issue strikes home with me. I think there are many answers to that question. I associate torture with totalitarian regimes, including those I was raised to distrust and hate in the Soviet Union and the Chinese communists. It is considered a war crime, which to me means something more than robbing a liquor store. More than a little disturbing that the people who used the KGB as a symbol of everything evil now excuse those same techniques by our own people.

As I have written here many times, very few things have shattered my illusions more than the way my conservative evangelical brethren responded to torture. Instead of responding with disgust and horror, they at best responded with a shrug, and at worse with a cheer. I consider this a betrayal of the faith, and further a suggestion that their faith is not very legitimate.

Torture, I would argue, is simply a bellwether for a broader sickness among conservatives and even those conservatives who claim to follow Christianity. That sickness is a complete lack of empathy for anyone who does not resemble them.

Torture is acceptable primarily because it was done to people they already hate and distrust. Put a conservative evangelical abortion opponent on the waterboard and I suggest the response would be quite different. Shackle a sweet Baptist missionary to a D-Ring in a freezing cell for days and you might hear some complaints from the Bible-quoting. But as long as it is a scary Muslim, they can't be bothered to care.

But, and this is the key for me, this is more symptomatic than anomalous. They supported the war in huge numbers--but had little stake in the game, and could not be bothered to actually care whether it was a good war or a bad war. If their teenage kids were looking at a draft for that same war, they would be much more interested. Hell, a relative of mine who could not name a sports team if her life depended on it, recently was quite aware of the conference changes because of her kid attending one of those schools. Imagine if the child were facing a forced deployment to Afghanistan? She might not be so supportive of that war.

And the beat goes on. Tax cuts sell for these people because it helps them individually. What do they care if it ends up cutting a program for some poor person? It doesn't effect them, and they could not really care less. Oh, I am sure that many of them will do their stint at the food kitchen, and will give money regularly to their local church. But they will vote to make more poor people and to make life harder on the same poor people. We are often told that conservatives give more to charities than liberals, but I would like to see how much of that ends up paying for AC at the local church and how much actually goes to help poor people not be poor. As Benen noted here, conservatives seem to openly dislike those who are unemployed. Sure, those conservative policies helped create much of that unemployment, but conservatives dislike those who are poor or unemployed. Hell, Rand Paul and the Tea Partiers are even upset about the ADA. Why should able-bodied people have to make life easier for the disabled? That asshat I confronted over the handicapped space said as much when he asked if I was disabled. If I wasn't, he reasoned, then why would I care?

Torture, then, is consistent with the rest of their approach. And as I have said, I am not sure that Christians can actually defend torture and be even close to consistent with their faith. I would extend that here and say that without empathy, I am unsure if Christianity even works. If you concern is really only for those who look like you and sound like you, then to paraphrase the man, "even the pagan can do that." I would be the first to recognize that sometimes compassion can be misplaced, and that there is some legitimacy to the concern about "moral hazard," but I would suggest that conservatives have turned the empathy/compassion switch to "off" and that drives their entire approach to public policy. That gives us tax cuts regardless of the economic reality, cuts to programs they don't use, and yes, torture.

Torture.

Well, when you really, deep down, don't give a shit what happens to other people, torture is really not your problem.

*A "bellwether" or "bell wether" refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a neutered male sheep (wether) so the whereabouts of the flock can be easily determined.

GOP capitulating to demagoguery--says defeated GOP candidate

To which the entire progressive community says "duh." I am glad to see this coming from a Republican, and this one sounds like a grownup Grownup Republican--the likes of which I was starting to think was as rare as the Yeti. But the trend is still very bad. Read the article, and you see that he is quite convinced that his loss came from his unwillingness to bash Obama and his interest in reaching across the aisle. I have Republican friends who still talk about bi-partisanship, and that is fine, but this is the base of the other party that Obama and other reasonable people are supposed to work with. People, I might add, who love the idiocy (still too nice of a word) of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin

"He cited a claim made famous by Palin that the Democratic health care bill would create 'death panels' to decide whether elderly or sick people should get care.

'There were no death panels in the bill ... and to encourage that kind of fear is just the lowest form of political leadership. It's not leadership. It's demagoguery,' said Inglis, one of three Republican incumbents who have lost their seats in Congress to primary and state party convention challengers this year."

Worth remembering on this July 4th

From Greg, a great post on the false Christian heritage that so many claim. My favorite line:

"The richest irony is that the plight of all the minority groups in the United States has improved as America has become less Christian. The secularization of government has actually advanced the cause of women, African Americans, and other minorities."

To be fair, there were a lot of Christians also working for those rights and causes. But those Christians are not the ones trumpeting their ownership of America.

White evangelical demographic trends

Fred has a very interesting post on evangelical trends, and it turns out that the numbers of white evangelicals have remained relatively constant over the last several decades. Meaning, as Fred notes, that for all the talk of evangelism, they haven't actually added to their numbers that much. Some of that, undoubtedly, has to do with people like me going out the back door, but the rest have to do with broader demographic changes.

This is interesting to me on several points. First, it suggests that my concerns with the evangelical church are not completely out in left field. I believe without much doubt that the evangelical church has become a defensive institution that cannot tell the difference between their sense of American history and their sense of their evangelical theology. Nothing speaks to that more than the evangelical support for torture. If anyone can honestly defend that as a practice consistent with the teachings of Christ, I will eat my words.

Second, I am concerned about the upcoming election. Recent polls show that Republicans have a huge lead in enthusiasm about the upcoming election. That scares me because so much of that enthusiasm is framed in outright factual errors and unbelievable racism. If you really think that the healthcare bill is a stepping stone to Hitler's version of America--then you are deluded. Absolutely batshit crazy. Having no basis in reality. Same if you look back at Bush's mismanagement of the economy (and everything else) and say that you "miss" him. Seriously. Disagree with Obama all you want. There are reasoned ways to do that. But not with Hitler and Bush.

But this demographic study suggests that Republicans are going to continue to struggle. They may do well in November. The off party usually does. And there is no doubt that the Tea Party idiots and Glenn Beck have poisoned the well with a lot of irrational anger. But the numbers suggest that this will not constitute a trend toward conservatism. Those angry white tea partiers are losing ground. Which is probably why they are angry, of course.

Anyway.

My distrust of July 4th

I love this country. I really do. I have spent the better part of my adult life studying the complexity that is American history--and feel that I have just a bit of understanding. So much more to learn. Out of that, I have a greater appreciation for the brilliance of the Constitution and the Republican (not, of course, to be confused with the GOP) approach to governing. Those ideas of res publica and concern for the public good and an informed citizenry still amaze me.

Likewise I am always in wonder that such a flawed government built by flawed men who refused to grant equality to any one of color or any woman. Yet, in the course of human events, that same government, and that same founding document has allowed for some search for equality and justice.

But I deeply distrust flag waving. It is the easiest and least legitimate form of patriotism. Samuel Johnson, I believe, is the one who said that "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." So easy to proclaim that you love America and that God favors your view of America. Harder to extend freedom to those you dislike. Harder still to trust the system rather than stoop to torture or war out of fear.

I will celebrate our country tomorrow. I will remember the bravery it took for men to sign that document knowing it meant their death if they lost. I will remember their thought to the excesses of power and of passion. I will remember their failings. And I will remember that in the name of this country, we have done much good. We have freed and rescued; we have supported and defended; and we have stopped horrors. But in that same name, we have exploited and abused; abetted tyrants and dictators; invaded and tortured.

That flag means a lot to me too. But it should mean more than a t-shirt, bumper sticker, or mattress sale. And it should mean that we actually do hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal. Even when they live in another country.

Can you vote for Republicans but still oppose torture and other insanities?

I am really asking here. Help me out, people.

Of course, when I was a Republican (back in the 1980s), I would have thought that was a no-brainer. I would have thought that in the 90s as well, even as I moved to the other side. Hell, I would have thought so even as late as 2004. I genuinely thought that most Republicans were simply fooled by Bush (as was I, really) and even with the ineptitude of the first Bush administration, I could see how they could vote for Republicans. Most of my friends, I think, were simply convinced that Republicans could not be this bad. They just could not. Most of them thought that Rush Limbaugh was a tool, and even didn't like the religious right leadership of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. They were reasonable people.

I am beginning to question that now. I have watched as the Republican base endorses and even embraces torture. George Bush openly brags about water boarding KSM and says he would do it again. I heard no Republicans say anything about that, and on the other hand, have heard them accuse Democrats of exposing us to more harm if we don't torture people when we get the chance. Republican candidates get cheered when they assure their base that they will be tough on terrorists and expand Gitmo.

I have a friend who believes that voting for Republicans does not mean, in any way, that he agrees with their stance on torture. He points out that surely I don't agree with everything that every Democrat votes for and supports. On that note, I agree with him--strange bedfellows and all of that. But I wonder if there is a limit to that. At times, for example, I am uncomfortable with the Democrats approach on hate crimes, or even some of their take on taxation. I did not agree totally with those who wanted and want us to just get out of Afghanistan. But ultimately, I can see their point on all of those issues, and even when I don't agree, I understand that reasonable people can disagree. Hell, there are still points with the Republican party where I stand in that same place.

But I don't see how torture fits in there. It isn't just another policy decision. It is a war crime and an atrocity. It is a crime against humanity. It is an act of evil. I don't see how rational people look at that, shrug, and still vote for a party that embraces and cheers that act. I don't get it.

Am I being unreasonable there?