capitalism, morality, and evangelical tribalism

It has been an interesting few weeks.  We had some great guests stay with us the last few weekends, and then this most recent Friday had to retreat to our shelter as a tornado came within a half mile of our humble home.  We were lucky, but one of our good friends had damage to her home and fence.  Luckily, she and her family are safe, but it was one of those afternoons that will get your attention.

I have had an on-again, off-again conversation with some evangelical conservative friends of late.  One of them works in a student ministry, and the other used to be a pastor--though that very fact both scares me and makes me very glad that he is no longer in that position.

Anyway, the conversation has been predictable in many ways.  Both tend to recycle right wing talking points, and many times, I think, without even knowing.  Both are convinced that government programs are inherently inefficient, and that a good many people who receive government assistance should not.  Both of those viewpoints, I think, reflect this idea of "tribalism" where they see things purely through a lens of  "with us" or "against us."  Conservatives have been very effective at using that belief, I think, in convincing conservatives (and many liberals) that the media is biased against conservatives, or most recently, that any program that Obama supports is probably a bad idea.  Fred Clark has written on this lately, and his last one suggests that this tribalism comes from a deep insecurity.

I am going to keep thinking about this idea.

But back to my conversation.  Beyond the rather reflexive "government is bad" from both, I also see what I believe to be a false sense of what the unregulated market will produce.  Both express a belief that people--as families, or as individuals, or as sexual beings--should act in a certain moral way.   But at the same time, they suggest that an unregulated market is best.  E.J. Dionne writes about this phenomenon, noting that most two-income couples are two-income by necessity.  But those who want one parent at home with the kids seem to also want the market unregulated.

As I pointed out (we will see if they respond), the market doesn't care about morality.  The market cares about profit, and if that profit comes by child labor, or selling crack or prostitution--that is fine.  The market only cares if the worker dies if he or she can't be replaced.  Same for the consumer.

And as I also pointed out to my friends, they tacitly accept this because they both want the government to ban certain things they don't like--drugs, abortion, and gay marriage.  The free market, however, doesn't care about either of those.

Why the market is to be trusted in some areas, but not others puzzles me.  But to be fair, so does the belief that somehow the market will magically address social or moral issues.  Not sure why anyone would think it cares.  Those things are only addressed when people make political and personal choices, and ask what are often hard questions.

Christianity in Crisis

On this day, one year ago, we said goodbye to Streak.  Amazing how much we still miss him.

My last post was obviously strident.  But the cognitive dissonance of conservatism and conservative Christianity is very hard to take.  I don't get it.  How do people who follow Christ (just ask them) embrace the politics of the rich and powerful, while stepping on the necks of the poor?  How has the teachings of an itinerant preacher become the preferred faith of the gated community set?  How do they not see a problem with that?

Thankfully, I am not the only one who sees a problem.  I know other readers here do, and it is nice to see others around the country asking the same questions.  I appreciate Andrew Sullivan's writings--I think he has written on torture more than just about anyone.  Here, in his article, Christianity in Crisis, he really examines the crisis of the faith, from the decline among Catholics to the disappearing mainline protestants to the evangelical protestantism.  But, as he notes, that evangelical protestantism is part of our problem, not part of the solution.  Not only do they embrace anti-intellectualism in just about every area of life, but an almost mindless authoritarianism.

And what group of Americans have pollsters found to be most supportive of torturing terror suspects? Evangelical Christians. Something has gone very wrong. These are impulses born of panic in the face of modernity, and fear before an amorphous “other.” This version of Christianity could not contrast more strongly with Jesus’ constant refrain: “Be not afraid.”

I have said to my evangelical friends that very phrase, "something has gone very wrong," and they just shake their head and insist that everything is fine.  But it isn't fine.  The most vocal followers of Christ are more interested in shaming women then preventing abortions.  They are more interested in protecting tax cuts for the rich than helping people rise out of poverty.  And they cheer the prospect of millions without health insurance.  Something very much fucked up about that.

One of my friends chastised me for my frustration during Holy Week.  He seemed to think I need to just focus on the meaning Easter has, and somehow look away from the rest.  But I can't easily do that.  I can't just turn my face from the attacks on the poor and women.  And, quite frankly, I won't.  I find great commonality in Sullivan's discussion of searching for God.  But I know he doesn't force women to have transvaginal ultrasounds against their will.  And he doesn't turn away from the hungry infant, or the sick mother.  If you expect me to just put on a nice suit for Easter and ignore all of that, then you don't know me.

Sullivan has hope for the faith:

This Christianity comes not from the head or the gut, but from the soul. It is as meek as it is quietly liberating. It does not seize the moment; it lets it be. It doesn’t seek worldly recognition, or success, and it flees from power and wealth. It is the religion of unachievement. And it is not afraid. In the anxious, crammed lives of our modern twittering souls, in the materialist obsessions we cling to for security in recession, in a world where sectarian extremism threatens to unleash mass destruction, this sheer Christianity, seeking truth without the expectation of resolution, simply living each day doing what we can to fulfill God’s will, is more vital than ever. It may, in fact, be the only spiritual transformation that can in the end transcend the nagging emptiness of our late-capitalist lives, or the cult of distracting contemporaneity, or the threat of apocalyptic war where Jesus once walked. 

For this Holy Week, that is a good place to start.

Dear GOP, how do I help the fertilized egg without helping the slut carrying it?

Dear GOP,

As a new conservative, I am trying very hard to wrap my mind around uphold the Republican party's stance on issues.  I understand I am only supposed to care about the fertilized egg, because, as Oklahoma's legislature has decreed, it is a "person" with "14th Amendment rights."

I also understand that we need to ignore the suffering of the disabled, poor, and hungry infants cut taxes for the "job creators" and simply don't care can't afford to help everyone.

But since I do care about the fertilized egg (person) and would like to help him, her it, how do I help that fertilized egg person without helping (and therefore encouraging) the slut carrying help him, her it?  What if the fertilized egg person has severe disabilities or may not survive to be ignored as an infant?  What do I do then?  Obviously, the slut carrying it has no say here--that goes without saying.  (Which is why I said it.)  Nor, of course, do all infants.  But what if that fertilized egg person needs expensive healthcare?  I know we don't believe in healthcare for individuals, so if that egg person is now a "person," it doesn't qualify for healthcare either, right?  After all, we can't ask the job creators to pay for that.  That would be ridiculous and quite possibly Socialism.  Or Communism.  Or Fascism.  Or Kenyanism.

Here is hoping you all have a happy Easter.  Now is the time to remember the torture enhanced interrogation techniques that our Lord endured for our sake.  Oh wait, that doesn't sound right at all.

Streak

Dear GOP--I am working on not caring

As a new conservative I am trying to adjust to not caring about others--you know, those without insurance, or immigrants, or women who need contraceptives, etc?  I get part of it.  After all, if you were stupid enough to be born poor or female, you kind of asked for this, right?  And it isn't my fault, so why are you asking me to spend my hard-earned dollars to help you? (how is that?)

But my problem is then making that pivot back to caring about a fertilized egg.  That is a hard one. After all, if I don't care about the egg's future healthcare needs, or that egg's future family's healthcare or nutritional needs, why do I care about the egg again?

I am sure there is some trick here--some way of forcing cognitive dissonance that I am missing.  I hope you will advise.

Streak

PS, once I have turned off the caring about my neighbors and friends, can I ever turn it back on?

Being Republican means not caring what happens to other people

Well, that obviously isn't completely true.  As a Republican I am supposed to care deeply about a fertilized egg, and actually care more about that egg than the woman carrying it.  But once that egg is born and in the open air, I am not actually responsible for helping him or her.  That little infant is on their own. If their family is poor, or abusive, that, politically, is not my problem.

As you can tell, I have been having a rough time of things lately.  The news that the ACA might be overturned which would make the Republican happy, has pushed me into a bit of a funk.  I am once again reminded that Republicans found it offensive that we get everyone into some kind of insurance plan.  That act offended them.

Torturing Muslim suspects didn't offend them, but making sure that everyone could purchase insurance, not be denied based on a pre-existing condition, and not be kicked off if they got too expensive?  Conservatives found that to be offensive.

I have no idea how to operate in that moral world.  It makes absolutely no sense to me.  It scares me greatly, I have to say, at a personal level because I know that we are one layoff away from losing healthcare, and one major illness away from bankruptcy.  It is that simple.  And if Republicans get their way, that insecurity will continue well into retirement, because they don't want me or SOF to be guaranteed coverage.  At any level.  And, while the condition is not threatening or dangerous, a pre-existing condition makes us uninsurable outside a group plan.

And Republicans want us to be insecure about that.  They are cheering news that the ACA might be overturned and that hated "mandate" be struck down.  They want to go back to the environment where we are all one major illness away from bankruptcy, and one layoff away from being uninsured.

All, by the way, as the Republicans push their budget bill before Congress.  It won't pass--thank the Lord--but it reveals their priorities pretty clearly.  Turn Medicare into a voucher system so that I, as an 80 year old, will need to negotiate and shop for health insurance--and hope--fucking hope--that we have enough retirement to account for rising costs.  Because if we don't, then we are done.  And, of course, the same budget proposal wants states the option of handling Medicaid completely as they want.  If we stay in Oklahoma, I predict that means the bare minimum.

All while they absolutely and stridently insist that no rich people be even troubled by this sacrifice.  No tax increase for them.  No problem for their retirement.  No, the sacrifice has to be for those who are at the bottom of the heap.  And, of course, those low-information voters who don't realize that their middle class won't protect them from ruin and illness.

But that's the beauty of being Republican.  If I choose to go that route, I don't have to care about what happens to the poor and needy.  That is their responsibility, not mine.  My responsibility is to get as much as I can, because I am the only one who matters.

Yeah, I know.  I need to really think about a news fast.  But just because I don't read my twitter feed, blogs, or the news doesn't mean this reality will go away.  Nor will the fact that not caring is the hallmark of modern conservatism.

Guest Post: Does the Frontier explain our political incivility?

CIL left a very thoughtful comment on the previous post, and I thought it was worth reposting for a wider reading.  My first title was, "This is all the fault of Frederick Jackson Turner" but thought that was a bit much.

Streak,

You have raised similar issues on this blog, but the question I have is why? Why has the level of political civility apparently declined? Why is there such an attack on women's rights, people of color, etc. as we have seen in places like Arizona?

I wonder if it is not two issues. First, and I think you have disagreed with me about this before, I think that the United States is more of a conservative-leaning nation. That when pressed, the nation has not pushed social reform issues further than it could have because of inherent conservative tendencies. I think of Gordon Wood's discussion of the Constitution, Eric Foner's work on Recontruction, historians who assess the impact of the Progressive movement and the Great Depression.

Second, I wonder how the frontier mythology on which the nation is contracted is partly at play here as well. In other words, I trace much of the current retrenchment, xenophobia and the like to 9/11. Turner argued that the "consolidating agent" on the frontier was the fear of Indian attack. So, in this way, 9/11 resembles the colonists' and nation's response to things like the Pequot War or Pearl Harbor. Rather than bringing out the best in people, there is a backlash - sending Pequots into slavery in the Caribbean, interning Japanese American citizens, endorsing torture. 

For those who may not know, Gordon Wood is one of the preeminent scholars of the American Revolution, and he argued, among other things, that the constitution represented a fundamentally conservative retrenchment against the excesses of direct democracy and the rather flippant ideas of the Declaration of Independence.  For Wood, some of the freedoms that Americans realize after 1787 are almost accidental--in that the founders really didn't intend for those terms and ideas to apply to the "common man."

FJ Turner wrote a very influential article called "The Significance of the Frontier in American History," that redefined American history at the time.  He argued that the frontier, or availability of "free land" defined America and encouraged the creation of American ideas like individualism, egalitarianism, and even our form of democracy.   And, as CIL notes, the identification of the Indian as "other" is critical to that American development.

Discuss.

Obama and Oklahoma

We all know that Oklahoma is the reddest of the red states.  Not one county voted for Obama in 2008, and that is unlikely to change in this election.

So this past week, Obama visited the state to speak for improving our oil distribution.  But not one of the State's Republican leaders was there to welcome him.  Not one.  And here is the sad part.  They won't suffer politically.  In fact, one could argue that the demonization of Obama and liberals is so fierce here in Oklahoma, that Mary Fallin or other Republicans would have been politically harmed had they done as much as greet the President with a cordial handshake.

What does that say about our political discourse?  I am not sure.  I don't recall the opposite happening with Bush and our former Democratic Governor, Brad Henry, either with a snub, nor with a political cost to the governor for being seen with Bush.

This is another example of how things are worse on the right than on the left.  The Tea Party and talk radio have pushed a degree of incivility that has become accepted by people who, as this editorial suggests, were "raised better than that."

On Trayvon Martin

I was out of town this past week on a short vacation, and realized on the road that I left the last post on misogyny in disarray.  Blame part of that on my fatigue, and part on the new Blogger interface.  Anyway, I have fixed it.

I come back to the world reminded again that the Republican party seems hell bent on alienating everyone other than white males--which puzzles the hell out of me.  But I also thought of the GOP's "southern strategy" when reading about the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin in Florida.  When Newt and others play that race card in the South, they play to this kind of environment where whites fear blacks in a false way, and don't even recognize the extent at which blacks live with genuine and very real fear that whites will use the power of the state or the gun against them.  That idea of white privilege is something I wish more white Americans would consider.  Yesterday, I watched ESPN's Michael Wilbon discuss the story about Lebron and the Heat donning hoodies to show solidarity with Martin, Wilbon just casually remarked that he had been stopped "driving while black" in his own neighborhood.  Or this from a former reporter for the Chicago Tribune.  Some of these stories are historical, but others are current.  

The furor over Martin is growing, and that is a good thing.  We should have a discussion about armed civilians taking the law into their own hands.  I know the trend (certainly here in OK) is to loosen and loosen gun laws and encourage more open carry, and in Florida, the trend has been to add easy justification for shooting if you are in fear.  Maybe this will change.  But, as Sharifa notes:  

"What nauseates and scares me is the deafening silence from the masses concerning Trayvon Martin, our neighbor. It’s curious to me how easily 100 million people could see the Kony video, buying t-shirts and forwarding videos, and yet remain silent about the neighborhood watchman in their own backyard who shot an unarmed boy for carrying Skittles."

This speaks to the same sentiment where people are deeply concerned with poverty in Africa, see the poor here as unworthy and lazy.  Our racism is deeply encoded and most of us don't even see it.  I see my own, and it bothers me greatly.  Or, let me say, I see some of mine.  I suspect some of mine is out of sight for me too.  But what I see bothers me, and I struggle to fight those voices.

As is very usual, Leighton has some wisdom to add to this conversation.  In comment from last week, he noted this problem of a world-view that doesn't include other people.

There is large subset of the population that has trouble with abstract thought, and tends to view the world in simple, black-and-white terms. It's been my experience that people like this will have moral universes that include only people they personally know, and strangers who are seen as simply good: fellow believers, their countrymen (so long as they aren't liberal), starving children in Africa (usually just the children), etc. Everyone else whose circumstances might require analysis or difficult consideration is rejected out of hand. To my mind, this explains why people who clearly care deeply about the people physically around them can be so vicious toward strangers, because it really isn't about people at all for them.

There is still much to learn about the Martin shooting, but there is some sense that the shooter saw Trayvon as a stranger and sub-human (in some sense, anyway) because he was young, and black in a white neighborhood.  He simply didn't fit.  Perhaps we will learn that the shooter's fears were real and legitimate, I don't know.  But the broader issue remains, and remains for all of us.  What limits do we put on those we care about, or will protect?

Republicans, conservatives and misogyny

This entire contraceptives battle has revealed an underlying misogyny that I didn't anticipate. Abortion, I understood, even as I disagreed with many. There has always been this deep discomfort with abortion in the American populace--a broad and shared sense that abortion is tragic and should be avoided if possible, but also a belief that it should be an option.

But there have always been those who were on the anti-abortion side, so it didn't surprise me that the pendulum swing against abortion sided to the conservative under Republican led states. I wasn't surprised at that. I was surprised, however, that the anti-abortion side started going so far as the "personhood" bills, but not that they went after abortion.

But the contraception angle is different. And reveals an underlying misogyny that I find deeply troubling. The defense is "religious liberty," but it dawned on me today that I don't find that convincing in the least. First of all, those crying "religious freedom" the loudest are the Catholics (makes sense) and the conservative evangelical base of the Republican party (makes less sense). That last group doesn't actually believe in religious liberty--not for others, at least. They are the heirs to the Puritan mentality where religious freedom was about their own approach, and was not for Quakers or Catholics or Baptists.

Historically, this group has never cared about Catholic freedoms, and has, in fact, often argued that Catholicism is either a cult or simply not truly Christian. Their adoration of Mary, the fixation on the cross, and, even, their opposition to contraception--Protestants have opposed (vocally) all of these aspects of Catholicism. And protestants have not historically opposed contraception. Abortion? Maybe. Depends. But not contraception.

And let's not forget that this group is part of the vocal and angry opposition to the supposed mosque in New York, as well as opposing the construction of mosques throughout the country. Their chant then was not "religious freedom," but "don't build that here."

Yet, they are now claiming religious freedom for a belief they don't hold. There are two possible explanations. One, is that they just instinctively oppose anything that Obama supports. That is part of this, I don't deny. But the other part, and the more shameful one, is that they have always been a little anti-women. This is the group pushing "submission" and decrying women clergy. This is the group that has opposed feminism and called female employment a "sickness" and an effort to undermine the family. And this is part of a larger group that referred to sexually active young men as "boys will be boys," but saw sexually active young women as "harlots," if not "sluts."

At some point many in this group will realize that this attack on women harms their own interests--and harms their mothers, sisters, daughters and wives. But until then, they will continue the lie that they are standing on some religious freedom principle. But that is a lie.

Gospel reading: Jesus rebukes an unclean slut

Fred once again posts a brilliant satire on the whole "slut shaming" from the religious right. And in doing so, reminds me of what has drawn me to the idea of Jesus. I lose sight, to be honest, listening to my religious conservative friends talk about the poor or in these discussions about women.

I continue to be amazed, frankly, at the lack of compassion or love for anyone who doesn't look like a middle-class evangelical Christian. I shouldn't be surprised, and am sure that Leighton will read this wondering just how long it will take me to figure this out. But it still stuns me that people who claim to follow Jesus have such little compassion for the poor, or for "difference" or for the "other" all while reading passages (or reading past) where Jesus demonstrates great love for those very people.

Here in Oklahoma, Republicans are trying very hard to do a couple of things in our legislature. One is to cut the income tax, and the other is the "personhood" bill that transforms a fertilized egg into a legal person. Meanwhile, our health is among the worst in the nation, and we also lead in abuse of prescription drugs.

The conflict between these two trends is very clear to me. Not so much to Republicans, or perhaps they just don't care. One of my FB friends defended the personhood bill as "biblical" (?) but about cuts in services shrugged and said something about there is "need everywhere."  When a poor or sick woman struggles with her pregnancy, they will say "God doesn't make mistakes," and "that is a human life that is sacred," and, of course, "your morals may not be the best."  If she needs pre-natal care, she may or may not get it.  If the child is born, they may or may not have food, or vaccinations.

She will absolutely have to give birth--even if it kills her.  But if that child dies during the first year (and we are on the bad list for children in poverty, and infant mortality), my Republican friends will shrug and blame the mother.  Or lack of a father.  Or both.  It just won't be their fault.

The people who talk about Jesus the most, are passing legislation that shames women, ignores the poor, and celebrates wealth and power.  Whatever this is, it isn't Christianity.  Or, to be more accurate, their policy doesn't, in the least, reflect the teachings of Jesus.

But according to my FB friend, the problem is my lack of faith.

Sigh.

Small government/failed state

Grover Norquist is most famous for wanting to make government small enough to "drown in a bathtub," an image that haunted many of us as we watched NOLA drown during Katrina. But we are seeing the impact of Norquist's small government-no taxes, ever policy across the country. In Ohio, at least one town is simply going to go out of business if they can't raise taxes. Norquist was asked if he would support raising taxes in the case of a natural disaster. He replied, so a tornado takes your house, how does raising your taxes help you? Yeah, that tells us a lot. No concern for the others who lost their homes. Just how does this effect you?

But the best example is Colorado Springs, Colorado--otherwise known as the home of Focus on the Family, the Air Force Academy, and many other right wing organizations. It is a very conservative town. They are so conservative, they really started the whole "tax payer bill of rights" nonsense. This American Life had a segment the other day, and it is really one you should hear. Turns out Colorado Springs is run primarily through sales taxes--taxes that are very vulnerable to economic changes.

When the recession hit, tourism dropped, and their operating budget sank. It dropped so low they actually stopped mowing city parks, and turned off streetlights. The city floated a tax increase which failed miserably, so the local leaders started pushing solutions such as lowering wages for city workers and cutting benefits. They also privatized many city services. And when the budget was at its lowest, the city actually privatized parks and streetlights. If you wanted your lights on, or trash cans in your city park, you could pay for it.

 Couple of lessons here. One, privatization is really suspicious--at least when the purpose is supposedly to save money. I have never understood that argument. I understand that a private company can pay lower wages, or benefits, perhaps, but the profit margin usually makes up for any difference. And in some cases, our privatized services are more expensive (Xe or Blackwater comes to mind). Using outside firms for expertise? That makes sense. But not if the justification is to save money. That was fairly clear in Colorado Springs. The best example was the landscaping company that took over mowing the parks. The workers made less in wages (though not tremendously so), and had to pay more for fewer benefits. But there was no evidence that it saved the city money. And that was the point, remember? Oh, and they are doing less too. Fewer maintenance projects on older parks. But no evidence it is saving money.

Second, and the part that just struck me to the core, was a conversation between a city leader and a taxpayer on the failed tax increase v. paying for your own streetlights. This guy thanked her for that program and said he had gladly paid $300 for his own streetlights. She pointed out that the tax increase would have meant only $200 out of his pocket, and that would have allowed for all the services to work. Everyone's streetlights working, and all the parks mowed and cleaned up. The guy said he would never vote for a tax increase for government.

 That is the sickness of this anti-government bullshit. This guy was willing to pay more to have less, all because he hates government more than he cares about his fellow man. When those lights were out, it was the more affluent neighborhoods who could afford to pay. The poorer ones were dark, and their parks were brown and dirty. He didn't care about that. All he cared about was himself. This is the "I've got mine, you can fuck off" mentality of the anti-government Republican party. And it makes me a little sick. This is the breakdown of community, at its very basic sense--some kind of shared experience and shared services.

Stupid people saying stupid stuff and enacting stupid and racist laws

The Tea Party Republicans have sure made their mark.  Their stupidity is only matched by their outrage and willingness to completely ignore facts or evidence.  Good god!  I thought George Bush was stupid, but he is getting smarter by the day.

Where to start, where to start?  How about Utah? Where their Senate just passed a law banning schools from talking about contraception.  Or homosexuality.  Or "erotic behavior."

Or, in the other wacky state, how about the fact that Florida's racist anti-Sharia law may result in interfering with Jewish divorce proceedings and other --you know, outside religious traditions.

Oh, but there is more.  Even Ron Paul had to note that the Republican criticism of Obama's apology for the Koran burning was over the top.  That didn't stop former half-time governor, (but full-time idiot) Sarah Palin from calling Obama naive and calling the people we are supposed to be helping, you remember, the people of Afhanistan, "savages."  Nothing says Christian like "we don't apologize to lesser beings."  And speaking of vocal Christian idiots, nothing says stupid like Michele Bachmann saying that the contraception order is just steps away from our government limiting family size.

Oh, and contraception, and the Republican obsession with women's sex lives.  As I read today that state legislatures have passed some 430 limits on abortion rights, I am reminded of how little those people seem to care about actual women's health.  Same people cut funding for Planned Parenthood in Texas (we will show them!) but you can't actually just pick and choose the legal services.  So Texas prefers that some 130,000 women go without healthcare.

Impressive. But the best, of course, goes to the Republican response to Sandra Fluke.  And no, I am not talking about Jabba Limbaugh's "slut" comment.  I am talking about all the people who either don't know how birth control works, don't care, or are just too stupid to be on TV (I vote for all three).  Amazing how many of them said that Fluke wanted us, the taxpayers, to pay for her birth control to have sex.  A), she didn't actually talk about sex, but about the non-sexual uses of contraception, and B) it isn't the taxpayers who have to pick up the bill.

Why do people still talk as if healthcare reform in this country is about giving it away for free?  These women under discussion, pay (along with their employer) for the insurance.  That is where that comes from.  Not from Bill O'Reilly's "hard earned" money.

As usual, Jon does it better.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Oh, and Fred, as usual, has a great take on some of the stupidity surrounding contraception.  I especially love the Republican arguing that something is an abortifacent because it is his religious belief that it is.

Cost of healthcare--or the world before the safety net

I am struck by the conservatives who seem to long for the world before the social safety net.  Several people I know just routinely talk about the fact that we used to "take care of" people at the community and church level.  But all of that misses two key points.  One, that the reason for Social Security and then Medicaid and Medicare was that churches and communities weren't able to help everyone.  Two, they are remembering a time when healthcare costs were much, much, much lower.

Here are some numbers, though as I start this process, I realize how hard it is to find good numbers and consistent numbers.  Bear with me.

Prior to 1920, medical technology wasn't much, so there wasn't that much doctors could do that was that expensive.

 In fact, the chief cost associated with illness was not the cost of medical care, but rather the fact that sick people couldn't work and didn't get paid. A 1919 State of Illinois study reported that lost wages due to sickness were four times larger than the medical expenditures associated with treating the illness

In 1929, one study has the average family paying medical expenses of $108 per year.  One estimate I saw had the average income around $1,400 per year, so medical expenses were less than 10% of income.  This was without insurance, mind you, as most didn't purchase insurance, and a small percentage of this was hospital stays.  So this is paying for the cost of healthcare, not healthcare insurance.  Hospital care starts to get more expensive as we move through the century.  Almost nothing in 1900, by 1965 a day in the hospital cost $128 but was up to $1,289 in 2002.

That alone demonstrates one huge leap in healthcare costs.  I will keep working on this, but I think comparing a world before 1930 with today is comparing apples with computers.  I read the other day that Rick Santorum had incurred some $100,000 out of pocket expenses taking care of his disabled daughter.  Those are costs that the uninsured simply can't do.

Imagine taking away that safety net all together, and then imagine the elderly without prescription coverage, assisted living, or access to expensive treatments.  Imagine the poor disabled and their costs.  We are not taking care of them now, but imagine that with a gutted Medicaid?

Anyway.  This is an early take.  I welcome your thoughts.

Why Does Rush Limbaugh Get Away With Calling a Young Woman a 'Slut'?

Because he is an asshole--is the short answer. But, as Friedersdorf notes, this says more about conservatism than this one misogynistic idiot. Conservatives celebrate this man, no matter what he says. Former Veep Dick Cheney joked about waterboarding with Limbaugh, and conservative organizations give him awards.

Obama called the young woman and told her that her parents should be proud of her. I can only imagine what that meant to her. By contrast, Mitt Romney hasn't said anything, and Santorum dismissed it as Limbaugh being an entertainer.

Sigh.

Adult males, supposedly reared in a religiously moral context can't just call this what it is. I am embarrassed for every conservative who votes for this party--a party so cowed that they can't stand up to this man.

Christian Nation: Love it or Leave it

Leaving school this afternoon, I headed through a drive-through for some greasy protein.  While waiting for my food, I noticed a SUV parked ahead with a bumper sticker that showed the outline of America, with the letters around the top:  "don't love it?  LEAVE IT!"

The stupidity of the bumper sticker struck me.  I am 99% confident that they were conservatives, and 100% sure that as conservatives, they spend more than a little time "bitching" about things American.  I am guessing that they don't like their black President, and they don't like the laws that their black President has signed into law.  I am guessing they don't like the programs their government does to help poor people (especially the black ones), nor the programs that back science and technology.

But they don't see their dislike of country as "disliking America."  Why?  Why could Jerry Falwell blame liberals and gays for 9-11, yet not be accused of "blaming America first."

The answer is why I hate the idea of a Christian nation, because those two in the SUV and Jerry Falwell believe that the country is theirs, and theirs alone.  They don't think America belongs to liberals, or to Obama, or to people like us.

There is such an odd and bizarre quality to it too.  "This is a Christian nation, and if you don't like it, you should just leave."  Can't quite connect that to the Jesus of the Bible, can you?  Reminds me of our extended relatives who bragged of going to Town Hall meetings with their Tea Party members.  Those, we can all remember, who liked to shout at their representatives.  You know, for Jesus.

Two thoughts.  One, this image I have posted before, and one that really needs no words.

Second, this great story from Fred at slactivist about a young girl in Rhode Island who protested the posting of a sectarian poster in her school.  Leave aside the debate over whether or not she should have protested, or whether or not the school should have allowed it in the first place.  Fred addresses that better than I.  

The young woman received threats--as you might have anticipated.

That’s a tribal response. It shows that, for these angry Cranston residents, this “school prayer” was no longer a prayer at all, but a tribal symbol, a tribal battle flag.

A prayer that included an appeal for divine help “to be kind” ceased to have anything to do with either kindness or prayer once it became an established, state-sanctioned symbol of privilege for a particular sect. Whatever that sect may have been about originally, its establishment as the official, privileged sect of Cranston turned it into something else — into the same thing that every privileged sect becomes.

This is what happens when religion is established and made official. This is what always happens when religion is established and made official. The privileges that arise from being the official, established sect become the entire substance of that sect. The defense of that privilege replaces every other purpose, meaning or reason for existence until it is all that is left.

My friend Anglican has often wryly asked those who claim us as a Christian nation, "so how Christian have we acted." It is a good question.  But one that is lost, I think, on people who believe in the "love it or leave it" America.  

Religious liberty--what a radical idea

Always nice when history shows up in a thoughtful way. No, not Santorum--or hell, any of the GOP talking about religion and history. But this nice piece on a new Roger Williams and his radical idea of religious liberty. Reminds me of the good old days, when people talked about ideas and history.

This was actually nice for me, and I am not being sarcastic. I remember well learning from other Baptists about the connection to people like Roger Williams. That came from another time, of course, when separation of church and state was not considered some "liberal" lie, but was something of which to be proud.

I also like the debunking of the Puritans seeking "religious freedom," and that is a point I try to make to students when the issue arises. Puritans believed that freedom meant having the right to follow God--as they defined it, and that certainly sounds like Rick Santorum, as well as much of the GOP base.

Where my pleasant memory fades, however, is when I recall the brutal conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention. While I didn't know much about it when I lived in Colorado, my time in Houston included time in both a fundy church and one of the last remaining moderate congregations in the area. We watched as conservatives led by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler gutted the SBC of thinkers and moderates. Anyone who questioned inerrancy had to go.

Sullivan reminded me of that with this brief post on the same process in the GOP. When I was young, like the SBC, a moderate Republican was not rare. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. I have to say that both the SBC and the GOP are worse for all of that. The emphasis on purity and dogma has robbed the country of one of the rich denominations that traced back to people like Roger Williams, and has turned the "party of Lincoln" into a freak show.

Open letter to Franklin Graham

Dear Mr. Graham,

You need to fire your staff, and need to do so immediately.  If your staff didn't immediately confront you when you left the Morning Joe set--you remember, after you again suggested that Obama was Muslim--and tell you, "sir, with all due respect, that was both stupid and immoral," then you need to fire them.  All.

I say that knowing that no single staffer is in danger after your words.  Because you have done this before.  And you need to stop.  But I am as sure that you won't.  You are not what your father was.  No, you are a political hack, and a stupid one at that.

Make no mistake.  I never thought your father was an intellectual.  I found his theology simplistic and superficial.  But he understood a few things that he clearly didn't pass on to you.  He understood that politically, it was unwise to divide his target audience into political camps--not if he wanted to be able to speak to both.  And at a moral level, I think he understood that whatever Christianity represents, it is supposed to be a welcoming faith.  Your father learned those lessons the hard way after he revealed a conversation with President Truman, though he didn't actually learn his lesson until he learned of Watergate and Nixon's true character.

You could know this, of course.  Not only are you your father's chosen successor, but his biography is well known.  In fact, your father said last year that he wished he had stayed out of politics.  Perhaps you don't read.  I don't know.  Perhaps you are just unintelligent.  That seems more likely.

I do know that while your father is hardly an intellectual giant, next to you he looks smarter every day.  I am sorry.  I don't mean to insult, but you revealed your stupidity when you dabbled with the "birther" controversy.  Only idiots think the President wasn't born in Hawaii.  You embarassed every person of faith that day, and have done little to remedy the situation.  Because you aren't just dumb, you are also a bigoted political hack.  When you said that you were more confident of Santorum's Christianity because of his "values," you revealed that your Conservative leanings are much stronger than anything approaching Christianity.  

You really need to shut up.  Seriously.  Read that damn Bible from which you claim to preach.  Check what it says about lying about others.  See what it says about how to treat your adversaries.

Read some books.  Hell, read some books about your father.  But shut the hell up.  For your own good.  Please.

Thank you,



Streak

Legal or not, abortion rates similar

Interesting study on abortion laws. Suggests that globally the rate is relatively constant regardless of if it is legal or not. But they also suggest that when it is illegal, the danger for women goes up.

Which is why I hate the pro-life tactic of attacking the women, but not trying to address the other issues. Access to good healthcare, contraceptives and reducing poverty will do more for everyone involved. Certainly more than these "personhood" bills.

Christians and fake oppression--birth control edition

Fred Clark is on a roll, and my blog is in danger of becoming a "hey, look what Slactivist wrote again this week" type of place.

Anyway, in this edition, he points to the ridiculous example of Rick Warren vowing to go to jail rather than provide health coverage for women. Or something like that. Except, as Fred and others note, no one is asking him to either go to jail or provide those nasty contraceptives to women. Churches get an out. Oh, and California has had the same law for the last 13 years.

Oh, Evangelical Mind? Where the hell are you?

Jon Stewart's clip on the contraceptive wars had a lot of the same posturing bullshit, including the embarrassing Richard Land, who compared this ruling on contraceptives to the beginning of Hitler's reign. You know, "when they came for the Commies, I did nothing, because I was not a godless Commie?" Because requiring people of faith to take care of women's health is exactly what Hitler did.

Richard Land makes me embarrassed that I ever called myself a Baptist, and all of these men embarrass me for not recognizing a few key issues here: A) that the contraceptive rule has been on the books since 2001 (when whatsisname was declaring war on Christianity) and B) that their prophetic role (however they understand that) is not to be political shills.

But these people are all conservatives first and foremost, and Christians, eh, third or fourth. Have to throw "male" in there somewhere, and "jackass" somewhere. As Natalie Burris tweeted, "in actual fact they are the heirs--precisely--of the white clergymen who were standing in the way of human rights."

Let's see if we can count this up. Conservative Christians don't mind torture (that is understandable--after all, remember the fear we felt on 9-11), don't mind cuts for the disabled poor (we sadly just can't afford to help everyone), but are opposed to extending contraceptive and screening help to women. Oh, they will mandate that same woman take her rapists baby to term, but they won't have their tax money pay for her pre-natal exams, nor the baby's nutrition or shots. "Just let me know when that little bastard needs a prison term. I will pay taxes for that--well, not actually pay taxes, all taxes are evil--but I won't complain when my government builds them or privatizes them at more cost to the state."

They openly cheered Bush's invasion of Iraq and are now cheering for the next war. They sit silently or passively while white racism is on the rise, and have really nothing to say about inequality--well, in the oddest damn little Marxist way--when they say that God isn't concerned (really) with their physical deprivation, only that their "relationship" with God is sound.

Wow.

Evangelicals and "life begins at conception." Yeah, not so much.

slacktivist: The ‘biblical view’ that’s younger than the Happy Meal

This is a must read, and yet another example of what Mark Noll called the Scandal of the Evangelical mind. This is what happens when you don't value the mind, or value a historical understanding of your own intellectual process. In this case, you miss that just 30 years ago, Evangelicals openly rejected the idea that life began at conception.

Abortion wars, continued

This week the Oklahoma Senate passed one of those "Personhood" bills. It passed with overwhelming support even though it has no out for rape or incest, (nor ectopic pregnancy) and was opposed by medical professionals. And, as Sarah Morice-Brubaker reports, the bill writers don't even intend to enforce the law in those troubling areas, but wanted to pass a universally pro-life bill as a "symbol." The bill has created quite a response among the liberal community, and among women who are not normally political--at least in my circle. Many are concerned that this bill will ban certain contraceptives, as well as in vitro fertilization.

I have been thinking about Leighton's comment on my most recent abortion post where he countered my "reluctant pro-choice" in typical elegant and thoughtful prose. My reluctance on the matter has always been out of some respect for the people around me who feel so strongly that abortion is taking a life. But those concerns have usually been couched in some kind of complex worldview where contraceptives were rational and we talked about things like viability or consciousness.

But this personhood nonsense and the previous attack on contraceptives has made me far less reluctant. One of my facebook friends was so reflexively defensive of this clearly idiotic measure--well, it just pushed me over the edge. As I noted on FB, if you oppose contraceptive services, good sex ed, healthcare for women and nutrition and vaccination services for infants? You aren't pro-life. You are anti-sex, perhaps, or certainly are dismissive toward women. The same Facebook friend who defended this personhood bill as a defense of God's infallible decisions, defended cuts for disabled children over tax cuts for the rich. There is nothing pro-life about this stance.

Leighton wonders "if the conservative stance on abortion is partly (mis)informed by its inability to comprehend the effect of collective systemic actions through its lens of everything reducing to personal, individual responsibility." I think that is certainly part of it. I am struck by so many conservatives (certainly not all) who seem incapable of walking out the consequences of an action or law. I see this in the death penalty where people who would never openly approve of executing someone who was innocent--but who have essentially stopped processing the morality of capital punishment after some theoretical "eye for an eye," and have never added racial or class bias to the mix, nor the DNA evidence that shows the flaws in the system. Likewise, they look at supply side economics, and just assume it should work. Forget evidence that it doesn't. The decision has already been made.

My facebook friend stopped after assuming that this personhood bill was "pro-life." That is good enough for him, even if it causes great harm to women, and even if the same people passing this bill will cut programs that help pregnant moms, infants, and children. There is no follow through. And despite the assurance that this bill was aimed to "save lives," it will kill people. Real people. People who have kids, or siblings, and who are absolutely and clearly conscious and among us. As Leighton also posted, everyone should read this story of a woman who nearly died because doctors wouldn't perform an abortion.

Kathleen Edwards

Last year's music scene was incredible.  I had about 18 top albums that were (and are) solid musical efforts.  Enough that I look at this year with a bit of skepticism.  Not sure who else I like can release new music.

But my first new album of the year is rock solid.  Kathleen Edwards has been one of my favorites since her first album (Failer) and her new one (Voyageur) shows her maturing into a first-rate songwriter.  There are several amazing songs on this album, but here are a couple of great live versions.  First, she joins with Sarah Harmer (another great voice) in House full of Empty Rooms



And this may be my favorite song--Soft Place to Land.  Just gorgeous.

Ugh, abortion wars

I have said here many times that I am one of the most uncomfortable pro-choice people out there. But I will say that the Republican and evangelical attacks on women are making me more pro-choice, not less.

Let's start with the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood fiasco, where a right wing Tea Party Republican led the effort to cut funding to PP. Not only was this blatantly an attempt to make everything political and charged, but it was, from my perspective, throwing women's health under the bus for a political attack on Planned Parenthood. All I heard out of that was "I don't really care if women get access to healthcare, contraceptives, screenings, etc--I just want to stop abortions."

Which would be one thing, but at the same time, Republicans are cutting programs that help poor kids and infants, and are attacking the very safety net that has helped parents with young children. Pro-life? Not sure about that.

Then I read this morning that Oklahoma Christian Republicans are pushing for a "personhood" amendment, and Kansas is pushing for extreme legislation that would require that women be told (falsely) that abortion can cause breast cancer; allow doctors to lie to patients, and other draconian measures.

Again, while cutting funding for poor people. And making it harder to get contraceptives. At a certain point, this isn't anti-abortion, or pro-life, it is against women having sex outside planned procreation.

Add that to attempts by conservative evangelicals to allow students to bully gay kids as long as it comes from their religious belief, and the very continued reality that every Republican will be voting for a torture defender this coming fall--and I am having a harder and harder time respecting anything conservative.

Obama and race--the Jan Brewer edition

This is old news now, but Jan Brewer's finger wag still bugs me. As does Newt Gingrich's "food stamp President" line. In fact, I think Republicans have returned to racism to attempt to win this year. Good god, they have a horrible record on this going back to Nixon, but it is still sad to see. I don't know if Gingrich is actually a racist, but his willingness to use racial code words makes him, in many ways, worse.

As for Brewer, she reminds me of the aphorism that we have no racists in America any longer. I have friends like her. Their racism is there, but they don't even know, or acknowledge it. After all, no one wants to call themselves a racist, so it is easier to convince yourself that your stereotypical view of people of color has nothing to do with race. And if you know little of history, perhaps you really don't know that the "angry black" man or woman is deeply encoded in our history, or that the "lazy black" person goes back to Reconstruction and the South's open rejection of black equality.

I would find this sad, but the consequences are so severe. Republicans seem hell bent on making racism acceptable again--all to win elections.

What Obama means for race

I started to rant about this, but think the picture tells it all.  This little boy, btw, wanted to know if the President's hair "felt like his."  

Awesome.    

Obama X

I don't know if any of you have seen the Bill Maher "New Rules" bit from last week, but it actually relates to our conversation about moral authority, and the late Internet Monk's comments about conservatives listening more to Limbaugh and Fox than thinking about their faith.  You can watch Maher below (f bomb warning), as long as it plays in my template and that HBO has not yanked it.  (If that happens, you can read some of the transcript here).

In this case, Maher is talking about Newt Gingrich's common tactic of invoking Saul Alinsky to somehow disparage Obama and liberals.  Alinsky, as it turns out, was a community organizer who tried to get African Americans and poor people to actually push for political change.  But in Gingrich's world, there is something nefarious about "community organizing" (and I wish I had some money for each time a conservative has thrown that at me online).

But Maher's bigger point was that conservatives have created a bogey man in Obama that is constructed out of nearly whole cloth.  As Steve noted in one of the recent comments, there are things to be concerned about with Obama on rendition and detention, but conservatives don't complain about those.  They like them, in fact, but they don't give Obama credit for that.  Instead, he is soft on defense, anti-business, wants to take your guns away, and doesn't actually like America.  Or, as Maher notes, he is supposedly anti-work, while Republicans love it.

That hit home after several of my recent talks with conservatives.  Almost word for word, they said that Obama was soft on defense, anti-gun rights, and anti-American.  He has raised our taxes (not true) and wants a huge government (government employment is down, which is part of our economic crisis), and wants to read terrorists their rights.  Yeah, whatever.

The bubble is pretty striking.  And disheartening that people who claim to read the Bible, pray, and attend church regularly have such little regard for the truth.  I shouldn't be surprised, I understand.  But I still am.

(NPR also did a story on Alinsky, and even noted that Gingrich used an Alinsky tactic in his debate the other day.  Irony.)

My Twitter feed

I decided to give the twitter name of Streak over to my new friend Aleem Mawani and their company, streak.com.  Twitter actually doesn't allow the sale of nicknames or aliases, and more importantly, I realized two things:  1) that twitter feed isn't actually my Streak, and 2) I can't sell him.

Here at the blog, I will always be Streak.  But on twitter, I will be available at a name that early blog readers will remember--@streaksfriend

Moral authority

I have argued for sometime that the modern conservative evangelical church has a very flawed approach to moral questions. As I have noted to my conservative friends, if 60% of my students fail, the issue is systemic, not individual. Doesn't mean that some of those students also failed individually, but the numbers dictate that I reevaluate both how I communicate the information and how I design the exam.

Likewise, if only 10% of evangelicals supported evil like torture or racism, I would chalk that up to the individual. But 60%? Something stinks.

In that vein, Greg has a great post on moral authority, and, in this case, Mark Driscoll's latest book on true marriage. I have no interest reading that particular book, but like how Greg connects Driscoll's parsing to this issue of moral authority. And I especially like how he explains how people who say they look to God exclusively as their moral authority are probably not being completely honest.

When people say God is their moral authority, I'm absolutely certain they don't understand what they're saying. First, God is not immediately available to talk to them, and as for those (like one student) who said a relationship with Jesus was key to understanding the Bible, I simply ask why you have so many denominations and traditions if that relationship steers you the right direction. It's simply a way of avoiding the dilemma. God is not your authority because God is not telling you what to do. A book is. The authority people believe is resident in God is mediated through a text, and that text must be interpreted; God, over against Elijah's assertions, is not readily available to answer questions. That leaves a community, or in most cases, an individual to ascertain which portions of the Bible function as moral authority. All this to say, if an individual is making the assessment about particular texts, then the locus of moral authority is the individual's conscience and desires, not God and not the text.

Evangelical churches (from what I hear, and probably not just evangelical churches, btw) have decided to not engage on many of today's moral issues. In the case of some of my friends, they see those moral issues as too political, or as too liberal. Can't really talk about environmental issues because it is simply too easy to become too liberal. And as Tony found out, talking about torture critically could also result in being tagged a liberal.

As Greg notes, moral authority is a difficult thing. It takes, I think, a community of people engaging on these issues. Otherwise, it is left up to individual desire and bias. That Pew poll on torture revealed exactly that, by the way. Those evangelicals who supported torture said that they based it largely on sources other than the Bible or their faith. When they were asked, as a part of the poll, in a mini act of accountability, to view torture through their faith, support went down.

If you leave race issues up to South Carolina's evangelicals--on their own--they will respond to Newt Gingrich's dog whistle campaign with great approval. They are not being asked to really confront that kind of hatred. If you leave torture questions to the average conservative evangelical, you will find that their conservative part outweighs their Christian part.

First World Jesus

I have been thinking a lot about economics lately.  It is very hard for me to see our current economic situation and not think about it in moral terms.  Yet, when I talk to many evangelicals, I don't get the sense that they see it that way.

I had a great conversation with a good friend of mine.  My friend is not one of those Republicans either.  He does a lot to help people in our community.  I respect him a lot and so was very surprised when he told me that the story of the young ruler in the Gospels isn't really about wealth, but about anything that might get in the way of God.  I can see that last part, but it is very hard for me to read any of the NT and not see a world where vast inequality simply doesn't fit.  Where the first shall be last, and where Jesus calls on people with to give their wealth or proceeds to those without.  Yet, I have heard from several evangelicals that God is not that concerned with poverty, per se, but only with the hearts of those involved.

Not only is that what Marx suggested about capitalism and religion, but it is, perhaps, a necessity for American Christians of all stripes.  Capitalism as amoral economic system doesn't care if profits come from kids, or from crack cocaine.  Capitalism doesn't care if the worker loses their arm.  It certainly doesn't care if people lose their homes or livelihoods.

Not only that, but capitalism uses all of our weaknesses to an advantage.  Greed fuels economic growth, because, like sharks, capitalists never have enough.  Capitalism preys on our desires and commands us to covet.  It is the complete opposite of the idea of having enough.  

Capitalism also requires a steady pool of underpaid workers.  When wages grew too high here in the states, we started exporting those jobs to places where minimum wage doesn't even exist.  Same for environmental or safety controls.  We all know that, and we all participate in that.

But if Jesus, like most American Christians, sees all of that as some separate economic system where Christianity doesn't apply, and where their only big concern should be to bring those poor workers Bibles rather than good paying jobs or clean water--we have constructed a First World Jesus.  Here, the main concerns for Christians is quiet prayer and bible reading.  It is to memorize parts of the Bible--simply, as far as I can tell to memorize parts of the Bible.  It is to parse words for their Greek or Aramaic root.  It is where you peruse mega Bible stores where you can purchase just about anything with a Bible verse engraved.

It is a world where that child laborer doesn't exist--nor that environmental and resource exploitation, or dangerous work environment.  Transpose that to the states (where many of those issues also exist, unfortunately) and massive inequality exists, but is not a moral issue.  It just is.  Economics are largely peripheral and theoretical.  The growing number of poor is an economic, not moral issue, and the only question is whether those poor people are right with God.  In that context, tax cuts for the rich are an abstraction, just as are cuts to the poor.

And we won't even talk about where those jeans or shoes or iPads are manufactured.

My twitter name "Streak"

I never really anticipated this, but I have been contacted by someone who is part of a company that uses that name. They would like to have the handle "Streak" for their twitter feed. I don't know what to do here. As everyone knows here, that name is pretty near and dear to us. I would welcome your thoughts.

Santorum reiterates two GOP talking points

So Rick Santorum was caught talking about black people and Medicaid. Here is his non explanation, really. But watch his answer. Very little ambiguity about the fact that he said that he didn't want black people getting welfare. As if, as I suspect most conservatives think, black people are the majority of welfare users.

It also reiterates my basic assumption that when people bitch about government spending, they imagine it going to poor black people.

But there is this other part--and one that I have heard over and over--that Democrats push these welfare programs to keep poor people dependent on government, and so continuing to give their votes to Democrats.

My understanding (and this might be just a false assumption, mind you) is that the poor don't vote in big numbers, and when they do, they are hardly a Democratic stronghold.

If this is some liberal plot to keep poor people voting for Democrats in order to keep them in power? It is a really bad and ineffective plot.

Small government at work?

Indiana National Anthem Bill: Vaneta Becker Aims To Set "Performance Standards," Impose Fines

The appeal of libertarianism?

It really confuses me, and I suspect there are a few here who see more benefit from libertarian thought than I do. I tend to agree with this Kos diary. I can see no way that a truly small government works. At least with any kind of complex economy and with an assumption that a middle class is a positive thing.

Government spending in our lives

Ok, new project for this new year. As many of you know, my operating theory right now is that most anti-government sentiment comes from people who really don't know what government does and conceptualize that government spending as handouts to poor people--or alternatively, as boondoggle programs to build a gazebo in some rep's backyard.

 So, I would like to quantify, if one can quantify in more general terms, the role government plays in our life. I don't mean this as pure partisan exercise, btw. I certainly understand that some of those roles are subject to legitimate debate. Maybe government should not be spending money in these areas. We can talk about that. But for right now, I am looking for examples of government spending in community and individual lives.

 A few parameters for you to consider. I am not terribly interested in those singular moments of porkbarrel spending. The "bridge to nowhere" doesn't interest me nearly as much as the more annual matching funds that communities receive to upgrade their sewers, roads, or police radios. And while I am certainly interested in the safety net spending, I don't want to focus only on that. By all means, send me links to programs like the one Smitty posted a year or so back about a non-profit in Michigan that provides assistance to the disabled poor and receives federal money as a supplement. But I am also interested in programs that assist small businesses, or community development, or agricultural areas. I am interested in how federal science grants have rippled through our entire economy.

Or not. If you have examples of purely private money doing all of those things, I am open too.

So, please send me any examples you can think of. You can post them in the comments, or email them to my blog address.

Republicans on the mandate

As I have written before, the mandate makes more sense than any of the opposition to that part of the healthcare bill. We are all in the healthcare game, whether we purchase insurance or not. I don't get why that is such a radical idea.

And it isn't, of course. As even NPR noted this morning, both Romney and Gingrich used to support it. It was only after the appallingly cynical right wing effort to demonize the mandate that it became a political minefield. That is easy to do when you blatantly lie to the American people. As Romney is doing on a regular basis, as this example suggests:

Or, as Romney put it in an interview on MSNBC just last week, "personal responsibility is more conservative, in my view, than something being given out for free by government."

It is one thing when my idiot ex-girlfriend believes that healthcare reform means handing it out for free. She knows very little and obviously doesn't try to correct that. But when someone like Romney uses those words, he is a lying toad. Openly and blatantly lying.

Because they are more conservative than Christian

Becomes that much more clear after this horrible story about LifeWay breaking their commitment to fight breast cancer after they find that the Susan G Komen fund is connnected to Planned Parenthood.

I understand opposition to abortion. I really do. As I have told many conservative evangelicals, it is the one stance from the conservative church that really does make sense. But that opposition has taken an awful twist from principled stance to political rigidity. And, with so many of their stances, is based purely in theory and has little to no reflection of reality. All fine and good to oppose abortion, but when that opposition stops you from embracing legitimate concerns like the life of the mother or incest and rape, then you have lost touch. Nor when you support the right wing's extreme attacks on women's health. Redefine "rape?" Are you kidding me?

Most of the conservative evangelicals I speak to have this view of most policy. It should work, so that is enough. That applies to everything from capital punishment to abstinence only to tax cuts in the face of mounting debt.

I also think that it is increasingly clear that most conservatives don't realize how far to the right their reps have gone. That uninformed electorate is perfect for the Rove/Fox News set, as they can push for the most extreme legislation and trust that their base will assume that anything Republicans do is more moral than the Democrats.

I have had a few conservatives admit as much. Not that it will change anything, and not sure why they still think I should respect their moral sense. If it isn't openly supporting evil practices like torture, it is chosen ignorance about those practices. Which is worse?

Ron Paul's newsletters

Fred at slacktivist says it better than me, so go read it. But it is hard to accept that Paul made over a million dollars off these newsletters, bragged about them back in the 90s, but now says that he never read them and disavows their content. Reading the excerpts of these newsletters, you see what many have termed "old school racism." If Paul really don't believe this stuff, that almost makes it worse. That someone would profit off of hateful drivel like advising people to buy unlicensed guns and be prepared to wipe and dispose of them after they shoot an "urban youth?"

Indefensible. Racist. Hateful.

Though, as one of my twitter feeds noted, those who wrote the newsletters might actually get the nomination with the appeal of racism and bigotry in the Republican party.

I sure wish that was funny.

The poor 1%

Merry Christmas, everyone. Back to blogging about politics, I guess, but really I am most interested in the economics of conservatism--or what have become the economics of conservatism. One Huffpo columnist suggested that conservatives really want to make all of America into the Pottersville of "Its a Wonderful Life." Perhaps.

My interaction with conservatives over the last few years suggests that most Republican voters don't want that kind of community, but don't seem to see a connection between good community and an active government. Same could be said about the middle class. Those things just "happen" in conservative minds because of the "free market." Yet, I see no evidence that the "free market" would create anything of the sort. That kind of approach is good at creating very rich people and very poor people, but not terribly good at building a middle class. Also not good at doing things that are not profitable. You know, like giving us clean water and air, or building libraries and hospitals.

As I have said before, I think most of this has to do with conservative voters conceptualizing government programs as handouts to poor and lazy people. If, in fact, most of our federal dollars went that direction, I would understand the anger. But it doesn't. Food stamps, for example, constitute about 1% of combined state and federal budgets.

I just had an exchange with a stranger on a friend's facebook wall that basically reiterates the point. This person claims to pay over 400k in taxes, but has no sympathy for middle class people who are in over their heads in home ownership, or their kids who frequent malls and buy nice cars.

Government money that has helped me, if I acknowledge it at all, is justified because I work for it. Those who get handouts don't. Simple as that.

The Huffpo piece is on point with this. Republicans have successfully appealed to the "I've got mine," crowd who don't really care if others have the same opportunities. That short-sighted approach, however, will be our economic undoing.

Streak and Grace

As we close down the year and look back, it has been a bit of a rough one. SOF has worked far more than usual, and that has been hard on her. And me, but mostly her. Losing Streak was really hard. And it still is. SOF did a really nice post on Streak the other day. But we now have Grace.

We didn't want her at first. It just felt too soon after losing Streak. It felt disloyal, and disrespectful. But the woman who wanted us to have a dog didn't take "no" for an answer. She had two dogs--one for my parents and one for us. Finally, we decided that this needed to happen. 

Her name came from an odd source. One of my old high school friends (she and I had, I think, one very unsuccessful date at one point) looked at our puppy pictures on Facebook and said, "she looks like a 'Grace.'" SOF and my mother and I just looked at each other and nodded. It fit.

 I don't think I had thought about it much beyond that. The name seemed cute. But it has taken on more meaning as we have had her in our lives. As SOF said, it sure felt like Streak wanted this to happen. He was always connecting us to others, and I know he would have hated us being sad. We needed grace in every meaning of the word, and we didn't even know it.

We still miss Streak.  But we learned that we could love Grace at the same time.  She could make us smile at the same time we grieved our friend.

Today is Christmas Eve, and I am grateful for so many, many things:  my loving and supportive wife; my family members around the country, and my amazing and loyal friends.

But this Christmas, my big present under the tree is Grace.

Austerity to address depression economics?

I know I am no economist, but I am really wondering how Greek and English austerity is really going to help them recover? How does laying off government workers help an economy that is already shrinking? How does reducing the spending money of the people at the bottom help with that either? I ask, partially because I am watching the European crisis and wondering what will happen next, but also because austerity seems to be the GOP's model for recovery.

GOP's anti-government rhetoric has consequences

The right wing's vitriol against the government is not new, and probably goes back to the Whiskey rebellion, but the way that the GOP and Fox News/talk radio have decided to profit from this hatred is new. And destructive. And we see that repeatedly, but the GOP still traffics in bashing government and demeaning government workers. Hard for them to be surprised at every turn when people take that rhetoric to its logical conclusion and decide to kill someone.

Mugshots Of The Senior Citizen Militia Members Charged In Attack Plot | TPMMuckraker

If conservative Christians rally around Gingrich

They owe me, and every other Clinton supporter, a public apology. They need to confess openly that their "family values" hand-wringing was pure bullshit. They might further note that their "conservative" values outweigh their "Christian" values as they only care about "family values" about liberals.

Seriously. I can't quite remember all of the bs I heard from my conservative Christian friends, but it was a lot of "what will the children think" and "if he lies to his wife, how can we trust him?"

Of course, those same people didn't blink a goddamned eye when their "family values-evangelical" President drowned people. Nope. (Gingrich openly endorses waterboarding, btw).

If you think that Bill Clinton was morally incapable of being President for cheating on Hilary, then you can't possibly think that the serial-adulterer Gingrich should be able to visit the White House, much less run it. Not only did he cheat on his wives (that is plural) but he asked one of them to just look the other way while he cheated--and did that after returning from a public speech where he discussed the great moral decline in our nation.

If you think Bill was "Slick Willy," and you hated him, then you have no business even thinking of voting for this moral blight that is Newt Gingrich. Personally, I don't really care. I don't like him, and I certainly don't respect his mistreatment of women, but I am more disturbed by his racist and callous flogging of things like the Sharia law bullshit in order to get elected.

And less you think I am jumping to conclusions, as Fred notes in this angry post, Richard Land is already advising Gingrich on how to fool evangelicals into voting for him.

More on OWS and the response

Thinking about our conversation on police brutality and the OWS movement. As I noted in my comments to Steve, my concern with police brutality predates this latest bunch of clashes. The common (or it seems) use of tasers, pepper spray, and tear gas by police, combined with what Naomi Wolf has noted as gradual eroding of first amendment rights by limiting protests and permit options. And, as I noted in my comments, it seems that the harshest tactics are reserved for those leaning left, not those leaning right.

This afternoon, I heard an excellent discussion on Talk of the Nation that included an interview with the former Seattle police chief who ordered the use of tear gas in 1999--what they termed the "Battle in Seattle." When I heard the guest, I expected a defense of strong tactics, but was pleasantly surprised to hear Norm Stamper call that decision the worst of his 3 decade career. He sees a real tendency toward paramilitary tactics across the country.

Stamper made several good points, but one that I thought was really on point was that he sees police treating protesters like enemies. As he noted, police are working class individuals who will never make big money from serving the public. But while they have more in common with the 99%, they become a tool for the 1% and lose the realization that those protesting are fellow Americans. Unfortunately, I hear that same rhetoric from the right on this--almost as a continuation of Sarah Palin's "real America" theme.

One other OWS themed post came from our friend Greg in a very thoughtful essay comparing the OWS movement (in how certain groups have responded) to the Civil Rights movement. Then, as in now, evangelicals have largely sided with the status quo and labeled those in the movement as anarchists or insurgents opposing American values. But as he notes, and as Martin Marty also argued, this is, at least in part, a movement challenging opulence and vast wealth--things hardly compatible with the Gospel.

It is indefensible for people who worship a messiah who innocently suffered violence to support police efforts to batter and pepper spray peaceful protestors into compliance with a status quo that supports no one but people with more money than they will ever need, more than their grandchildren will ever need.

Something awfully wrong with this picture

And I note that we didn't pepper spray Tea Party idiots calling for armed revolution. We don't pepper spray anti-abortion protestors. And we don't pepper spray morons from Westboro Baptist church. Nor should we pepper spray any of these. They have a right to assemble and to their protected speech--even when it is hateful and bigoted. Anglican asked how to reconcile these images with the text of the First Amendment. Excellent question. When did protesting economic inequality become the last taboo? And as Fallows asks, how different is this from the fire hoses aimed at Civil Right's protestors?

No tax increases has consequences--like letting murderers go free

Heard this story (Cutbacks Have Some Courts Dismissing Criminal Cases | Here & Now) on the way home from teaching. I would like to be shocked, but am not. When conservatives decided that government was evil and that taxes were evil, they started us down the road of not being willing to pay for anything. This also reminds me that I am more than convinced that most people bitching about their taxes only think of government spending going to poor black women rather than paying for the infrastructure that makes society function.

Courts are laying off people, closing court rooms, letting accused criminals go--all because we refuse to pay for living in a civilized society. This kind of story makes me want to find Grover Norquist and punch him in his stupid face. Followed by every Tea Party idiot who ever bitched about being "taxed enough already."

Hmm. God must like torture

After all, he told Cain, Bachmann and Perry to run for President and all three of them defend the use of torture.

This guy connects all of this with the Penn State tragedy and blames it on a generational loss of leadership. There is something there. I know that something happened in the conservative church, and possibly in more than just the conservative ones. When the most vocal Christians in the race are the most vocal for torture? Up is down.

The sickness at Penn State

Everyone seems to be trying to explain or understand what happened at Penn State. Sure, there is the unbelievable evil of Jerry Sandusky raping young boys over (at least) a 20 year period. I would never minimize that, but we have had pedophiles before, and will (unfortunately) again.

The question that haunts me is how he could continue to do this behavior after discovery. How do good people, in other words, allow this evil to occur? Nicole Rodgers suggests that it is a product of the good old boys club, and I think there is much to that.

But I also wonder if this is not about paternalism and deference gone awry. The more I read about PSU, the more I see that Joe Paterno had a pretty unique situation there--one he had, in large part, created. Successful coaches are powerful elsewhere, but Paterno seemed to have cultivated even more power on the campus--and largely through means that we would all celebrate. Many credit him with transforming Penn State's academic prowess from an ag school into a intellectual powerhouse. One reporter suggested that Paterno had enough power to remove a university president.

In fact, what I read reminds me of a mob boss (bear with me), though with a key difference. Actually two key differences, because I have yet to actually read of Paterno abusing people. On the contrary, the stories of his leadership (prior to this scandal) are legendary.

What I mean by mob boss is that he had created the environment where everyone on campus sought his approval. (One key difference is that I have also yet to read of real credible efforts to overthrow Paterno. Everyone there seemed to both admire the man, and recognize that his name was synonymous with the brand. Some other coach, in other words, could not replace him.)

That need for approval, or intense deference, was built on the understanding that Joe Pa would take care of them. It is that context, I think that might (might) explain the grad assistant's response. He witnessed Sandusky raping a child, and instead of interceding himself or calling the cops, he spoke with his father and only the next day told Joe Paterno. It is conceivable that Mike McQueary saw the situation in the context of not wanting to disappoint Paterno. (Not an excuse, mind you, but possibly how he saw the situation). He might have thought (and I suspect if any of this is true, this is in the subconscious) that going after Sandusky could possibly alienate him with Paterno. So, he deliberates and then decides to tell the boss what he knows.

Paterno, for his part, turned the information over to his AG. If I am correct, however, instead of giving it to his boss (perhaps on paper), Paterno was delegating to a subordinate, who could also fear upsetting the boss. The message might have been clearly unspoken--take care of this, but don't upset the program (and "program"="Joe Paterno").

I am speculating on most of this, but have observed this deferential behavior in myself in dealing with perceived betters, and observed it often when working in an organization. And I am not suggesting that Paterno is malevolent. I am suggesting that the unintended consequence of the "cult of the personality" of Paterno created a very unhealthy organization. And I would suggest that this disfunction occurs in many, many organization. Most, however, don't have these stakes.

I would like to know more about how things operated in Penn State when the stakes were lower. Did assistants and grad assistants do the equivalent of "whistle-blowing" on other problems? How did Joe Pa deal with people who screwed up? Where there people who were "untouchable?"

None of this excuses any of them for not picking up the phone and calling the cops. But a possible way of examining how people operate in this kind of organizational structure.