Our failed prison system

I have always argued that our prisons and schools fail for the same reason--we don't agree on their purpose. Should schools prepare the next generation of workers? Critical thinkers? Patriots? Should the prisons rehabilitate or punish? Protect the public?

Of course most of us what these institutions to do all of the above in some form, anyway. But I think our prison system is the most messed up, and I think that is because the desire to punish people is stronger than the desire to make them better people. I thought of this while listening to this story in my driveway last night. Turns out lots of people in jail are there, not because they are dangerous people or unwilling to change their behavior, but simply because they can't afford bail. And those who can't afford bail, end up doing more time.

According to the Justice Department, two-thirds of the people in the nation's jails are petty, nonviolent offenders who are there for only one reason: They can't afford their bail.

And because they can't get out, they can't demonstrate their willingness to turn their life around by going to rehab, or taking care of their responsibilities, and are instead left to take whatever deal the prosecutors offer them.

Defendants who make bail do less time. Several defense lawyers in Lubbock said that in their experience, if Currington could get out, go to rehab and pay restitution, he would very likely get probation. Prosecutors are offering him five years in prison.

And while these guys sit in jail, the cost to the taxpayer is very high--one guy has been in there for 6 months at a cost of over $7,000 for stealing $120 in blankets. No doubt that is a crime and no doubt he needs to not only pay for that crime, but stop doing that. But one has to wonder if this is the best way to A) rehabilitate someone and B) manage the public's resources? During the local public radio news break, they discussed the budget crisis here in Oklahoma that will result in furlough's for our prison staff. Yet, it is my experience that those bitching about taxes are often those who have no sympathy for anyone in our criminal justice system and usually want more prisons and jails built, and harsher penalties.

a process almost unique to the United States that rewards the wealthy and punishes the poor. And, NPR has found, it exists almost solely to protect the interests of a powerful bail bonding industry.

The result is that people with money get out. They go back to their jobs and their families, pay their bills and fight their cases. And according to the Justice Department and national studies, those with money face far fewer consequences for their crimes.

People without money stay in jail and are left to take whatever offer prosecutors feel like giving them.

This is bad policy, and bad governance. And this is the product of a society who wants to punish people more than it wants a better society.

The Aggrieved and Persecuted Christian

A very interesting blog post on this idea of Christians under siege in a culture where they hold tremendous power. Some interesting issues here, including far right involvement in the horrific Ugandan proposal to execute homosexuals for being gay. Also interesting that some of the numbers floated about Christians killed around the world for "being Christian" appear to no be well founded.

I've never understood the ability of the Christian right to turn Christians into victims, despite their overwhelming majority in the nation and in running its powerful institutions. Maybe it's because the other choice -- realizing their role as both powerful and sometimes oppressive -- would put them on the wrong side of a biblical tale.

And that is my take too. Christians in this country dominate much. Not all, for sure, but they are certainly well represented. One can't get elected to national office before assuring America that you are a dedicated Christian. Christian conservatives are well represented in the national media, and over-represented (IMO) in national politics, yet they play the victim card with ease. Perhaps, as this blogger notes, their power has put them in the situation where they have supported and encouraged the absolute worst and unChristian acts imaginable. They have cheered crusade-like war, have abetted and defended torture (that still stuns me beyond belief) and now are cheering and mocking those who want to extend healthcare to the uninsured.

More on self v. others

Leighton left an interesting comment on Irving Kristol's take on social justice in my last post. I started to leave a followup comment but realized I might want it as a post.

I am really torn here, thinking about the sense that the GOP seems to approach this issue of healthcare in a very callous sense. A friend (actually, a jerk I used to know) from Facebook was direct--he said we couldn't afford to help those without health insurance. I know too many Republicans who are good people, who are concerned about their world around them, and those who are in need. But why is it that the party at large appears to be so apathetic to those needs? And further that the aforementioned Republicans with compassion still fall behind those GOP leaders? Saying that we "can't afford" helping them in a world where even with a recession so many of us live very well--well, it sounds hollow, and very far from the supposed model of Christian compassion.

Is this an issue of authoritarianism? Or something more simple?

Speaking to a conservative friend today, he noted that he didn't think that healthcare was a "right." I understand (sort of) but wonder how that compares to those ideals enshrined in the Declaration--and, I might add, so often noted by the very same conservatives as some kind of American Scripture?

I guess I am full of questions tonight.

One more thing about the healthcare issue. My friend said it wasn't a right, or that many conservatives didn't see it as a right, but a privilege. But even those conservatives tacitly approve of hospitals and clinics serving the destitute and the homeless if they collapse on a public sidewalk. Someone pays for that, just as someone pays for the middle class family forced into bankruptcy by healthcare costs. Do conservatives somehow think they don't pay for that?

Why do we say that someone in need of life-saving care can be attended to, but that same person cannot be assisted, or subsidized in getting preventative care (which is ten times--at least--more efficient than emergency care). This sounds more like a punitive approach which suggests that conservatives believe that those without insurance deserve their fate. And even though it costs them (the conservative) more to care for those in emergency care, they will not help those who have not deserved it. A friend of mine as much said that--that he didn't want to help those who were too lazy to work for their insurance. The Good Samaritan comes to mind as a counter story, but then again, I am unsure where American Christians incorporated the idea that people need to earn their right to life.

Needless to say, I am confused (and tired tonight). I don't understand where Christianity fits into this punitive style of conservatism. I don't understand why any pragmatic or fiscally responsible conservative would choose paying for emergency care when preventative care is better for everyone.

I don't understand much right now.

I have approached life all wrong

And now realize, thanks to Republicans, that I need to simply worry about myself. For right now, I have decent healthcare insurance. Sure, we could lose it, and be uninsurable, but for now, we are ok. So screw everyone else.

I think I am getting the hang of it.

Still annoyed this morning

And trying to avoid the news. I know it will all be about how Obama is failing and the Democrats suck. I understand the symbolism of Kennedy's seat going to a tea-bagging Republican. I get that. This was a bad day for Democrats, no doubt. And part of this is purely the Democrats fault, but like so many times, I wonder if they will not learn the absolutely wrong lesson, and assume that it means they are supposed to turn right. As if, of course, so many Democrats aren't already right of center. I think those who suggest that we already have a Republican party, and need to offer a real alternative.

I also think that the media stupidity does not help us. It helps the Republicans, even though they have nothing to offer right now. The media favors an overly simplistic view of the world, and that is exactly what the Republicans are selling. I read somewhere that Scott Brown (that is his first name, right?) wrote an op-ed in Boston where he laid out his policies, and they were all simplistic right wing claptrap. Tax cuts? Seriously? No serious economist thinks that is a good thing for our current situation. They may disagree about how we raise revenue and jump start the economy, but they all agree that tax cuts are not some magical talisman that heals whatever economic reality you see.

But that sells to people, as I noted before, who have no real deep thoughts about policy. Tax cuts are simple--and they ostensibly mean that individuals will have more money. Except when they result in reduced services and more pressure on local infrastructure. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that most middle and working class Americans have lost far more in services, tuition costs, healthcare costs, and in real wages than they have ever come close to gaining in tax cuts. It is a net loss, and a substantial one.

But it is genius for the right wing. Those losses are hidden, while the tax cut is visible. When you think about it, it is an amazing sleight of hand. You tell people you are giving them back their money, while you rob them with the other hand. They thank you for the tax cut and ignore the losses elsewhere. Same sleight of hand procedure, I suspect, that the right uses on Christians--giving them fake piety and language on the front, and then enacting unchristian policies in back. Tell them you follow Jesus and he is the most important person in your life, and then turn around and enact torture policies. And the Christian right turns out to vote for you.

Sigh.

Evidently 59 votes is not a majority

And a conservative friend told me that the current proposal was a "feel good" measure rather than real reform. Which, of course is why the conservative right went ape-shit over the healthcare proposal.

Right.

I will believe that Republicans are honorable people when they denounce the "death panel" bullshit of their party and actually produce something that helps average Americans. Until then, they can take their Tea Parties and shove them.

Word of the day: shit weasel

I know, I know. It is actually two words. But that is the phrase running through my head the last few days contemplating a Republican victory in Massachusetts. Yeah, the Democrats have lost a lot of energy in the last year. Some of that is explainable, and some of it isn't. And by all accounts, they put up a bad candidate in Mass to succeed Teddy.

But what do you say about a party that would gloat for weeks and months if they were successful in killing healthcare? It isn't as if they have an alternative in the wings that will actually provide coverage, or end the pre-existing condition. After 6 years of complete control of the Senate, House and White House, they did absolutely nothing to reform healthcare. And their objections now? I am sure there are many who have principled objections, but most of them simply want to defeat Obama. That's it. That is the sum total of their "principle."

They have told us the last several months that our healthcare system is the best in the world. Perhaps I am extra annoyed today because I found out yesterday I have a case of the shingles. Not a bad case, thankfully. I had these in junior high and they ruined several months of my life. This one is just an annoyance. And I have relatively good healthcare.

My doctor prescribed an anti-viral for me, and I was stunned to get the bill for $70, and that was with a substantial pickup by my insurance. Holy crap. One week's meds and it would have been over $250 if we didn't have decent coverage. Yeah, our healthcare system is in great shape.

Shit weasels.

The guy running for the seat pledges to be the "41st vote" against healthcare. That is his goal--to stop the best chance of reform since the New Deal.

Perhaps my anger is heightened by what seems like a complete lack of historical memory or even philosophical thought from so many conservatives. Don't get me wrong. I know there are many conservatives--and some who oppose healthcare--who have thought through their philosophy of government, and have read their history. And there are many liberals who have no clue why they are liberal. But, as our recent troll demonstrated, so many have only a superficial thought about government and taxes and governing. Talking to them about something as complicated as governing reminds me of the quote from Billy Madison:

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And yet that incoherent approach to governing is reflected in their stars, from Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin. Is it too much to ask that we have a conversation about what our government means without a kneejerk "government is evil and the enemy of freedom?" How the hell are we both the greatest country on earth and given a government that is our enemy?

\rant

This is very troubling to me

And perhaps there is something I am missing? TPMMuckraker notes that American soldiers are using rifle scopes inscribed with abbreviated references to bible verses

including lines like "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

That verse is rendered on tiny letters on the the scopes, made by Wixom, Michigan-based Trijicon, as "2COR4:6" referring to chapter 4, verse 6 of the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.

So help me out. An American soldier, someplace in country, is lining up an insurgent in their scope, ready to pull the trigger and kill this person, and doing so with a verse suggesting that they do this "for the Glory of God?" Am I the only one who finds that troubling?

Heh. A good flowchart for finding your religion

Assessing Obama

I obviously like reading Sullivan, though understand not everyone likes him. But on assessing Obama, I think this is a particularly good post.

"Obama is a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency. Once you grasp this, his first year makes much more sense."

I am continually amazed, as is Sullivan, how both the left and right misunderstand Obama. The escalation in Afghanistan, for example. I am still not convinced that it is a good idea, but it is very hard to be surprised by this given how Obama spoke of this conflict from the beginning of his campaign. In fact, he continually echoed a foreign policy reminiscent of HW Bush.

I have a friend who voted for Obama primarily because he thought he would be best at bridging the partisan divide, and that he would make that his chief priority. I think Obama has done a lot to work with the right, but it is very hard to work with people who think that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make sense.

He has also failed to end the cultural and partisan polarization in America. But he has not empowered it. The energy for this polarization has come from the hard left (which is angry at him) and the hard right, which, to a great extent, has gone completely bonkers in the wake of their defeat in 2008. This rabid conservatism - one that seeks more tax cuts as debt spirals, that thinks Gitmo is an asset in the war on terror, that wants no extension of health insurance, no bailouts, no stimulus - may well ride some populist anger to short term success at the ballot box (watch Massachusetts' by-election next Tuesday). But under Obama, the Republicans have become whiter, more extreme, more religious, and synonymous in the public mind with polarizing fugures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck. This may be a good ratings strategy for a cable network like Fox News, but it's a highly risky one for a party attempting to win back the center.

"Bonkers" may be the kindest word for the thugs on the right who have lost their freaking minds. As I said, Rush Limbaugh just told his Dittoheads not to contribute to Haiti, and there are a lot of the Republican base who think he makes sense.

CW and Obama

SOF and I made a Starbucks run this morning, our usual Sunday morning ritual. This particular one was a little different because we had to get up and give one of our cats an insulin shot with his breakfast. Eh. The cost, as I noted in an email, of an aging pet population in our house. He is doing fine, and we are getting used to giving shots--something I have not done since my youth on our small ranch.

Anyway, at Starbucks, I noticed the NYTimes in the corner and read the headlines. One was on how the Democrats are cratering and the election in Massachusetts is proof of that cratering. Opening the WaPo website on my return, and more of this doom and gloom.

Before Christmas, Anglican sent me this from Esquire: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?, which I had not gotten around to reading until this morning. Obama has been anything but a failed President during his first year. But if you turn on the Cable news or read the papers, all you hear is the bs that he has been ineffective and that the public is losing faith in the Democrats.

Of course, if you look at the polling data, you do see that Obama and the Democrats have sagged in the polls. No doubt about that. I have two explanations for that. 1) Obama and the Democrats have sagged, not because they have been to liberal and too adventurous, but because they have not been liberal enough. The stimulus package, while important, was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and other spending that did very little to stimulate the economy. Obama should have pumped billions into infrastructure spending as he first suggested, and put more people to work across the country. Likewise, on healthcare, as Greg Sargent notes, more people are unhappy with the current proposal because it doesn't go far enough, than those who say it goes too far.

2), and this is certainly related to the last point, but the media is still quite conservative. Sargent's interpretation of the polling data may be flawed, but it is an arguable case. But you won't hear that line on the supposedly liberal mainstream media. Yet, throughout the entire Obama administration, you can always count on the fact that the most conservative voices will be heard on just about every outlet. As The Atlantic noted, this is not a new phenomenon. In the 19th century, newspapers were commonly so associated with their political bias that they were named after their party affiliation: for example Wherearewe Republican, or the Whatever Democrat. For me this is new because we have a good segment of the population who has completely bought the myth of the "liberal media" which makes the conservative nature of our media nearly invisible. You can call that a hat trick for the Republicans. Even though their polling is even lower than Democrats or Obama, they have successfully controlled the message and Conventional Wisdom.

Not to say that Obama has not made some missteps. He certainly has. But I am increasingly tired of our media listening to people who have a track record of always being wrong.

TNC and Chris Matthews on Sarah Palin

So You Ignant Voters Hear Me... - Ta-Nehisi Coates

David Axelrod suggests that Karl Rove needs to check his figures

David Axelrod - What Karl Rove got wrong on the U.S. deficit - washingtonpost.com:

"So, let's review a little history:

The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.

To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit."

This was the easiest prediction from 2008--that once Bush was out of power, conservatives would suddenly remember the words "fiscal responsibility." But I am not sure I even anticipated the unbelievable gall of odious men like Karl Rove--people who worked closely with Bush on some of the worst policies with no transparency or oversight--now criticizing Obama on those same issues. Oh, and making up the facts as he goes.

If Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the best representation of the conservative base--anti-intellectual and fundamentalist, then Rove is the best representation of the cynical and openly dishonest and unethical wing of the party that actually made decisions during Bush's term. These are the people who actively worked to disenfranchise people of color, or created fraudulent vote fraud cases to present around election time, or who worked on science panels to undermine science.

It has to be one of the most glaring contradictions in history that the people most draped in Biblical conservatism and "moral values" have instituted some of the least Biblical and least moral policies in American history. All, I might reiterate, at the cheering of the evangelical right.

Sarah Palin Debuts as Fox News Contributor

And gives us her great insight into the race story with Harry Reid. Sarah Palin Debuts as Fox News Contributor - Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com:

"PALIN: I know. And that double standard is — and that hypocrisy is another reason why so many Americans are quite disgusted with the political games that are played, not only on both sides of the aisle, but in this case, on the left wing, what they are playing with this game of racism and kind of letting Harry Reid's comments slide, but having crucified Trent Lott for essentially along the same lines (inaudible)."

Yes, again, we have one politician lamenting the end of segregation and one saying that an African American man can be President, but using a poor choice of words. Of course, in Sarah Palin's world, that is the same thing. Because she is dumber than we think. We should never over-estimate her ability to be stupid.

Doctors without Borders link

Um, this is part of the right's race problem

I know, I know. Conservatives with brains just hate that Rush is considered conservative. Most of the conservatives I know no longer listen to him, and consider him a problem. But he is still very much associated with the base, and adored by the Tea Party types. And when you listen to him say that Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country" and accusing Obama of speaking out earlier on this issue than he did the underwear bomber--well, you realize the level of hatred on the far right.

This is a nice bookend to the Harry Reid comment thread, actually. WIV pointed out the power of words and also the constant mantra of hiding behind "political correctness." I have always hated that phrase, I guess, because I have distrusted it. It was not "politically incorrect" for Trent Lott to lament the end of segregation. It was racist. What Reid did was, actually, politically incorrect, in that he pointed to the issue of skin color and speech patterns, and used a 1950s word for black people. This, I might add, from a conversation in that book that details how Reid was encouraging Obama to run for office and even to go against the vaunted Clinton machine. Bad choice of words, but the underlying meaning was not overtly racist.

And here we have Limbaugh and exactly what is wrong with the base of the Republican party. As TNC and others have noted, those in the far right don't hate racism, they hate it when they perceive that there is racism against whites (even when it isn't there). But they have no problem with racism against blacks. No problem suggesting to the white racists in the base that Obama is responding to this immense catastrophe simply because there are blacks in trouble, and black votes to woo. No problem expressing a complete lack of compassion for the thousands and thousands dead.

Unbelievable. And yet, I will wait to see if any elected Republicans will excoriate Rush in public and denounce his racism. I bet not.

Pat Robertson responds to Haiti

And you won't believe it. Oh hell yes, you will. He says that Haiti made a pact with the devil to get freedom from the French, and that pact with the devil has cursed them since. This, according to the big giant head, is a true story.

H/t to Leighton for this story, and he notes the particular self-centered approach this kind of thing seems to elicit--as if this disaster in Haiti is somehow remotely about us. For Robertson is it affirming that we are better because we didn't make a pact with the devil. For others, it is, in the back of the reptilian part of their brain, proof that those poor Haitians have somehow deserved this fate. It hasn't been about colonialism, or race relations, or global economics. It is about their spirituality v. ours.

I hope we can all find some way to help the Haitians today. It is not easy to do, when we live as far away as we do. Perhaps starting by donating to one of those excellent organizations that is doing the hard work. It isn't much, but it is something.

Donate | Doctors Without Borders

Donate — Oxfam America

An obvious point about terrorism

That unfortunately, most in Washington, and everyone in the Republican ranks of Congress seem to not understand. Terrorists wants us to freak out:

"At least one person in the United States, Barack Obama, seemed to recognize that the objective of terrorism is to promote terror and sought to defuse that effort by handling the threat with the proportionality and common sense that has long been missing from U.S. counterterrorism strategy."

Instead, Republicans (especially, but not exclusively) decide to respond to terrorism by screaming bloody murder that we are "all going to die." Which is exactly what the terrorist wants, right? Reminds me of the Republican freak-out over moving Gitmo detainees to American jails. Listening to them, you would think these guys are 7 feet tall with super-powers.

When we lose our values, or our minds in response to terrorism, they win. That seems rather obvious, but not to those wanting to make political hay.

On Harry Reid--and one on small government

As just about everyone knows by now, the new book on the 2008 campaign includes a quote of Harry Reid commenting on Obama's chances, which, he thought were favorable because Obama is both light skinned and doesn't use a "Negro dialect." Predictably, the right wing has erupted with anger. How dare, they argue, the Democrats allow Reid to hold his seat after they hounded poor Senator Trent Lott out of office.

Personally, I find Reid's language cringe-inducing, and am glad to see him apologize for using 1950s era language to describe then candidate Obama. But the comparison to Lott is about as ridiculous as it gets. One commented on the issues of skin color in American politics as well as the issues surrounding what is called "Black english" in some circles, while the other expressed deep nostalgia for segregation. The same? I don't think so.

TNC weighs in here, and Serwer here. For a bit of context, TNC notes that the guy who lost to Michael Steele for RNC chair continues to play golf at a segregated club.

And one other note, caught by the capable people at The American Prospect which taps into what I think is the biggest problem for the anti-government crowd--selectivity and self interest. Turns out that even the Tea Party people often defend government largesse when it is in their economic self-interest.

.. As the Messenger reported, [ex-GM employee Joan] Fabiano, like most tea partiers, is opposed to the government bailouts of banks and the so-called "out of control spending" in D.C.. But when it comes to General Motors and Chrysler -- two companies bought out by the government in the depths of the economic downturn -- Fabiano said the protest could hurt the business climate in the one of the worst states for unemployment in the country.

Reminds me of the Town Hall criers saying things like "keep your government out of my Medicare."

Sigh.

More on morality--updated

I have been mulling over that NAE poll from the other day. I think Leighton hit the nail when he noted that for the conservative evangelicals, the problem is external to them--all those non-evangelicals who don't listen to the Word of God and understand the absolute truth. Hence the concern that moral relativism is one of the major moral issues facing the nation.

Sully is watching the Alabama governor's race and the amount of fundamentalist angst in that race is amazing. One candidate waffled on the entire literal truth of the Bible and was jumped by his opponents. Alabama has one of the most punitive and ridiculous tax systems in the country, but the big concern is someone who reads the bible literally and absolutely.

SOF and I talked about this over coffee this morning, as we have numerous times over the last decade. I have argued that the difference is between a more Catholic Seven Deadly Sins and the evangelical obsession with the Ten Commandments. The deadly sins are internal and part of everyone. The 10Cs, for many people, are those sins that other people do. After all, "I don't murder, steal, or lie (mostly). I attend church on Sundays (right before the football game) and never take the Lord's name in vain (unless that doesn't mean swear)." That, I think, explains the obsession with Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandment statue, and every other fundy effort to have those posted in public places. "We aren't worried about our morality. We are worried about yours."

Update: I forgot the central point of our conversation this morning. SOF made the very critical point that Jesus himself was a caution on that mentality, as witnessed by his discussion during the Sermon on the Mount:

"21'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."

It seems that Jesus was pretty concerned with the sins that all men do, and less impressed with those pointing fingers at others.

The NAE says that "moral relativism" is one of the top three moral problems facing America, yet I have to believe that those answering the poll didn't think it was their own. Having heard about this most of my adult life, I know that moral relativism refers to liberals and their morality. It most certainly does not apply to those who cheered Bush's torture policy, without realizing they were arguing that torture was ok in this situation because of who we fight. Moral relativism. Bush's arrogance was fine because he was right, and he was listening to God. Obama's arrogance is wrong because he is a liberal.

Need more? How about the Scott Roeder trial. The man who walked into a church and gunned an abortion doctor down in fucking church has received permission from the judge to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born. Thou shall not kill, but it is ok when you have a good reason.

The problem isn't our morality. It is all those unchurched and unsaved souls out there who are the problem.

Yeah.

David Frum reviews Steele's book

Steele’s 12-Step Plan for Self-Destruction. Includes parroting Sarah Palin on bureaucrats and your health, and cheering the Survivor approach to moderates in the party (get rid of them).

The far right wing is still driving this party. Part of me cheers that because I think that will help the Democrats win. But most of me laments the continued insanity of a major party in a two-party system. Our Republic works better with engaged, and intelligent disagreement. The Dems let us down on that all the time, but the Republicans now give us Tea Parties and Sarah Palin. And now John McCain accusing the President of purposefully bankrupting America. Or Liz Cheney cheering on torture.

Surely the GOP can do better than this?

More proof that McCain would have been a colossal mistake

Turns out that Obama has more problems on his Israeli policy than just dealing with a right wing leader like Netanyahu. Turns out that two Senators from his own country (McCain and Lieberman) traveled to Israel and backed Netanyahu and undermined Obama.

Lieberman has long been a horses ass. And hell, so has McCain, when it comes right down to it. But this seems like more of the sharp right turn from McCain to hold onto his seat. And this is Israel, where the right wing will support just about anything. But it also seems that there is no limit to the kinds of anti-American activity that only conservatives get to do.

I am reminded that this action will get much support from the conservative evangelical community. Just after we learned that moral relativism is a huge problem.

Sigh.

Evangelicals and Torture revisited

And this is rather stunning. Via slacktivist, I read of the National Association of Evangelicals'year-end survey on the top moral issues facing America. No one will be surprised to read that abortion made the top moral outrage, but the other two are really ironic, yet clear that the evangelicals are completely irony impaired.

Number 3 is "misstreatment of others" which includes "our blindness and silence to injustices here and around the world. Social ills like poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, human trafficking, and so many other..." Kudos to evangelicals (seriously) for mentioning poverty and malnutrition, as well as homelessness. I am reminded that their favorite President BW (before W), Ronald Reagan dismissed the homeless in the 1980s as being mentally ill. I will hope that these evangelicals chided President Reagan, but I doubt it.

No, the irony is that "misstreatment of others" does not appear to include torture. And that is highlighted by moral issue number 2: moral relativism. When I read that I had to close my mouth manually. Moral relativism? You mean like deciding that something is ok because the other people are worse? Or deciding that torture is acceptable for us because we are in a vicious fight with people lacking morals or Christ?

I just searched the NAE website for the word torture. "Total: 0 results found."

Sigh

Speaking of John McCain, here he is sounding like a right wing troll

John McCain, facing a strong primary challenge, has turned right and is now "accusing President Obama of ‘leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America'."

That's right. The guy who named Sarah Palin as his Veep, is accusing the sitting President of purposefully trying to ruin America. It is amazing what latitude conservatives get. And it is absolutely disgusting how ruthless they are in seeking their goals.

Shame on you, John. Shame. Heh. Who am I kidding. The guy who still defends choosing a moron as his Veep has no shame.

The campaign that will not die

Yet another book is out on the 2008 Presidential race. I am not sure I can read the thing, but there are some interesting tidbits coming out, and not all of them concern Palinisms.

For example, we learn that Harry Reid uses language like "Negro dialect," and that Bill Clinton remarked to Teddy Kennedy about Obama: "A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee." I think we knew that the Clintons were ruthless, but it is rather shocking to read of this kind of racial language coming from our side. Well, not shocking. Disturbing.

But there are some wonderful tidbits on Palin, and this is my favorite (from the caucus blog):

"* In the days leading up to an interview with ABC News’ Charlie Gibson, aides were worried with Ms. Palin’s grasp of facts. She couldn’t explain why North and South Korea were separate nations and she did not know what the Federal Reserve did. She also said she believed Saddam Hussein attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001."

Speaking of Palin, btw, even the McCain campaign recognizes now that Palin creates her own reality. As Mudflats notes, they caught one of the more bizarre "up is down" moments in the Palin campaign when the Branchflower report came out on Troopergate. Here is what the report said:

“For the reasons explained in section IV of the report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.11(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.

But here is a transcript of Palin speaking to Alaska reporters, and referencing the report.

Palin: Hey, thank you so, Meg. Thank you so much. Thank you also to our local reporters up there in Alaska. Even hearing your names make me feel like I’m right there with you at home. It’s good to get to speak with you. Let me talk a little bit about the Tasergate issue if you guys would let me and, Meg, you want me to just jump right on in there?

Stapleton: Sure governor, go ahead.

Palin: OK cool.

Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that.

Perhaps Palin did nothing wrong in that situation. And perhaps it was a politically motivated investigation. But how do you read "Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statue" and say that you are "cleared of any legal wrongdoing...any hint of any kind of unethical activity?" How do you do that?

Mudflats ends with the bigger picture of how Palin demonstrated a threat to our democracy. Hell, she still does. But her idiocy and lack of honesty is just one part of the problem. Others, supposedly responsible adults, are culpable for making her a national star in the Republican party.

The thing that Steve Schmidt and others have failed to acknowledge so far is John McCain’s culpability in this near disaster. Regardless of who supposedly vetted her, the buck stopped with him, and he chose a woman to be his potential Vice President – OUR potential Vice President – who is not only incompetent by his campaign’s own admission, but who does not tell the truth. His decision was irresponsible, and absolutely reckless. As much as we chuckle at Sarah Palin, his judgment put our country, and the rest of the world at risk in the name of his own political ambition. History will not judge him kindly.

Agreed. John McCain has squandered what might have been a favorable legacy.

Normalizing torture

I keep thinking about that Rasmussen poll that had 58% of Americans calling for us to waterboard the Christmas day bomber. Perhaps it is a bad poll, I don't know. I read that he has worked as a Republican pollster. But even that is disturbing.

Just on a whim, I googled the phrase "Republicans against torture." My Safari browser found a lot of things that Republicans oppose, or at least common search phrases. They included Obama, healthcare, Obamacare, and even Sarah Palin. But no torture.

But I did find stories on torture and Republicans. Stories like this one where a retired Lt. Colonel named Alan West is running for Congress in Florida. He very nearly went to prison for staging a mock execution on a suspected Iraqi insurgent. West now says that he might have been wrong about that Iraqi, but he would do that all again. Further, he says that no one was even tortured at Abu Ghraib. He often jokes about his own torture to Republican audiences, telling them that wasn't torture, "seeing Rosie O'Donnell naked would be torture." Turns out he isn't just a open torturer, but also an ass. Those Republican crowds love him, though.

To be fair, his initial run for Congress included no support from the RNC who wanted nothing to do with him during the 2006 election. But I wonder what his fundraising efforts are now. During the 2008 primary season, John McCain (to his credit) was booed by Republican audiences when he called waterboarding both torture and wrong. Booed. Liz Cheney still says that waterboarding isn't torture, and that sentiment is echoed by the Republican candidate in the special election to replace Ted Kennedy. Or watch here as Republican Congressman Aaron Schock openly defends what he calls "alternative torture" techniques, as long as they save American lives.

I recall so vividly when conservative evangelicals wrung their hands over their concern that Bill Clinton's sexual misdeeds would somehow teach the children bad morals. And remember, Clinton may be a lot of things, but he never said that what he did was right or ok. He may have lied about it in the beginning (actually he did) but I never recall that moment where he justfied his actions as moral or appropriate. On the contrary, Republicans commonly defend these techniques. And the people most likely to say they vote their "moral values" are at best, silent. At worst, they cheer the torturer against those they see as foes in a spiritual war.

I should not be shocked by any of this. As I told SOF this afternoon, I fully expect the next GOP candidate for President to be a torture apologist. The fact that so many Republicans consider themselves Christian makes that all the more troubling. The fact that Dick Cheney's warped morality may be seeping into the American culture is simply appalling.

I do know that the next time I hear a Republican talk about moral values, I just might puke.

on Brit Hume

If you haven't seen Jon Stewart's take on Brit Hume and his comments for Tiger Woods, you can now. Pretty smart stuff. As I told a friend this evening, Hume has every right to speak his mind, but I seriously wonder today if conservative Christians even care how non Christians (or non Conservatives) see them. They don't seem to act as if they care at all. They seem to act as if they are yelling in our face about their faith, and then wondering why we are looking the other direction. In fact, if we object, we are part of the "war on Christianity."

One of our Christmas letters was exactly like that. This from a relative, btw, who dropped me like a bad habit when he found out I was not as concerned about the Boy Scouts and the Gay agenda as he was. Fine. Drop me for my political ideology. But then don't get in my face about your faith when I am pretty damn sure that wasn't exactly in the WWJD territory.

I am again reminded of the Thomas of Assisi quote about always preaching the gospel, "if necessary, use words." Hume and his type seem to reverse that and never demonstrate anything approaching grace. Then he gets mad at me when I object to him lecturing Tiger Woods about a religion that Brit Hume knows nothing about.

Anyway...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Temple of Hume
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

2010 blogging

It has been a while. Christmas was a blur (as it always is) and here in Oklahoma we experienced a blizzard for the ages on Christmas Eve. It was beautiful, fun and scary and infuriating--all at the same time. My parents visited and I was so glad their drive avoided the bad storms on both legs.

Christmas was good. But then on New Years Eve, as SOF and I attended an Oklahoma City Thunder game, I realized that my congestion was more than that. I woke up New Years Day with a fever and grinding headache. That cold (or whatever) has persisted and hit me hard again yesterday. This morning, I feel like I might have pushed through toward the good side, or can see it in sight.

_____

So, what else is going on? During Christmas, I heard second-hand about the Christmas bomber on the flight headed to Detroit. I heard that security would make travel much harder on flyers and thought that the terrorists got just about exactly what they wanted. We often seem to forget that terrorism is not intended to destroy us in some kind of violent military strike, but to undermine our ability to function. In that vein, it has worked quite well.

But then, after Christmas, I read about the number of Republicans and conservatives calling for the bomber to be waterboarded or otherwise tortured to find out what else he knew. Rasmussen (a questionable pollster, btw) reports that some 58% of Americans support that view.

Everyone reading here knows that I consider the Bush administration one of the worst in American history--shockingly incompetent and destructive. And this is one of the by-products of that administration that shocks me to my core--that so many Americans embrace torture. And not just the bigoted and stupid--but the supposedly moral and churched--those most likely to report their political decisions based on "morality."

It still boggles that mind that people who rant about the torture of Christ, or even (as I noted before Christmas) will raise the specter of tortured Christian dissidents, see no disconnect between that sense of outrage and their endorsement of the torture of terrorists. That is how they see it, of course, that all of the people we tortured were actual terrorists. Never mind that the torture of terrorists is still immoral and counter to the teachings of Christ. Never mind that it is ineffective. (Never mind that we have tortured people to produce false confessions: see Andy Worthington: A Truly Shocking Guantanamo Story: Judge Confirms That an Innocent Man Was Tortured to Make False Confessions).

Terrorism may have won after all. It has turned our moral compass so much that we now make the same kind of moral judgements as the terrorists themselves--that it is ok to do evil things to people you consider to be evil.

This is not a new observation, but one that shows up in such amazing clarity when we watch our political discourse. When you see people who embrace torture and wiretapping then calling healthcare a form of "tyranny," then you see that our moral compass has had the indicator ripped off the base and thrown away.

Well, this was odd

During a conversation regarding the War on Christmas (which everyone here knows I find ridiculous), I stumbled across the American Family Association website. Often known for its right-wing nuttery, I found it ironic to find an ad there for a book called Tortured for Christ.

Am I the only one struck by the contrast between a book about a tortured Christian and the right wing's support or tolerance of Christian George Bush's own torture regime?

____

And speaking of the Bush approach to the world, I heard a very interesting interview last night with an author studying Blackwater:

"When we left off, we were talking about a civil suit against Blackwater in which two affidavits submitted by former Blackwater employees, each known only as John Doe, make several allegations against Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater, including that he's a Christian crusader and that he may have facilitated the murder of individuals cooperating with the criminal probe of Blackwater.

So in one of these affidavits, John Doe A or B says that Prince views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe and that his companies encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life.

That's a really strong statement. It...

Mr. SCAHILL: Well, I mean...

GROSS: Yeah.

Mr. SCAHILL: ...that was one of the least shocking things that I read in there because, you know, I've been tracking this story since 2004 and it's abundantly clear to me that Erik Prince views himself, and I don't say this rhetorically, Terry, Erik Prince views himself as a Christian crusader. There's almost no doubt about that. I wasn't stunned at all when I read that. Everyone at Blackwater knows that."

Joe Lieberman is an ass

And I have never really trusted or liked him. I still remember him allowing Dick Cheney to lie his way through the VP debate in 2000 without a single challenge. What an idiot. And now, he seems hell-bent on killing health care. Why? Because he is a bitter, bitter man. Chait seems to think that perhaps it is because Lieberman is is not that smart, but benefits from a general stereotype that Jewish people are generally smart. I am not sure about the Jewish thing, but am convinced that Lieberman is not a good person, nor terribly smart.

Two other small notes

One, from my new favorite conservative columnist, Bruce Bartlett on the stimulus. He concludes that the evidence suggests that it worked, and continues to help the economy. The worst elements of it? Tax cuts. Worst, in that they aren't actually helping the economy, while putting money into state and local governments, and even assisting with unemployment benefits is actually contributing to the GNP in a positive way.

Second, I have to note that Sarah Palin came to Norman the other night for a "book" signing. Evidently, the Palinites from all of Oklahoma made the pilgrimage to see the addled celebrity, and my friends reported seeing a lot of "Palin 2012" signs. There were some protestors there, including one who held up a sign saying something like, "darn, I thought I was going to get to see Tina Fey." That was my favorite.

But on a serious note, I have noticed that Palin likes to bring her Down's syndrome child (Trig) to her speaking engagements. I have no problem with that, as far as it goes, and certainly never had a problem with her bringing that child to term. But on several occasions, people notice her bringing the child to the podium to hold up to the crowd before handing off to an aide. This tactic of using her child as political prop lowers her in my estimation almost as much as her recent statement that the "birthers" have a "fair question" about Obama's birth certificate.

I know that many conservatives (including a few here) think that Palin is irrelevant and unimportant. But her celebrity among the right and her continued relevance in political discussions (poll numbers, etc) make her relevant. She is the face, like it or not, of the modern Republican party, and every irresponsible thing she does (which is often) exposes just how unserious the right is about responsible governing. That should never be ignored. And won't be, I am afraid, until the "grownup Republicans" step up and rescue their party from Beck and Palin and their disgusting ilk.

Obama and the surge

I am curious what my blogfriends have to say about this most recent Obama decision. SOF and I have spent some time talking about it, and we are still unsure. I just lectured on Vietnam and it is hard not to see the parallels between the late VN war and Afghanistan, when in both situation we tried to win the "hearts and minds" of people by killing a lot of their neighbors. They are not the same situation, to be absolutely fair, but it gave me pause as I spoke the other day.

We are, however, quite impressed with how Obama makes decisions. He has a good track record on this of making decisions that look "iffy" at the time, but prove to be pretty well thought out. As I said to SOF the other night, "he doesn't think with his gut, and thank God for that." And I mean that wholeheartedly. I think some of his critics on the right simply don't recognize serious consideration of a complex and perhaps unwinnable problem. Instead of the "decider," we have someone who actually deliberates.

In conversations with some conservative friends, I have been struck by the difference in how they see our country's founding. A) they most often see the government as some kind of external and evil force, as if the people have no say in our government, and B) they often see the role of representation as some kind of direct vote in Congress. In other words, they think that their reps have to do what they tell them to do, rather than the representative republic where the people elect virtuous representatives who then make the best decisions they can--even if they differ from those of their constituents.

Anyway. Hope you are all having a nice weekend. I would love to hear your thoughts on Afghanistan.

One of the reasons I am proud to be a liberal

Is that I have watched as my liberal colleagues have stepped outside their ideological bias time and time again. Liberals defended Larry Craig, and here is a good example when Ta-Nehisi Coates defends Mike Huckabee on the clemency issue. I agree with him here. The guy was in jail for 100 years for crimes committed when he was a teenager. Clemency was deserved here, and the problem is that there didn't seem to be a followup to make sure that this guy got the help he needed.

Conservatives seem to take pride in their tough on crime stance, even when that tough on crime stance includes innocent people. This person clearly was not innocent and clearly was a threat, but Huckabee's actions were not out of line. I don't like the guy and think he should not be President, but the right has completely turned on him over this.

Palin as Christian icon

Tony just mentioned that he went to his local Christian bookstore only to see Palin's book prominently displayed. I hadn't even thought of that angle, but of course they would promote this book. Everything I have read suggests that Palin exhibits the absolutely worst elements of Bush's persona--without the possible good sides (giving him some benefit of the doubt). She lacks even basic curiosity about matters she would decide; prefers what she "feels" over demonstrable fact; and is completely and nearly pathologically incapable of admitting error.

The fact that she has become a poster child for religious conservatives is simply sad.

Happy Saturday after Thanksgiving

I hope you all had a nice Thanksgiving week. We went over to one of our friends here in Norman and ate very well while enjoying lively and thoughtful conversations--ranging from the OU Football program to the nature of American power since the 1950s. Not bad.

One thing that came up in our pre-turkey conversations was the changing role that Americans have decided for government investment. I am starting to see the world we live in as "Reagan's world" or the world of tax "cuts" and deregulation. I would say the world of small government, but that is increasingly clearly as mythical as some kind of pure communist state. Just doesn't happen. Not where you have a complex and large economy. My conservative friends cling to the myth of the small government, just as they cling to the myth that cutting taxes on the rich magically helps out the poor.

Paul Krugman may have not originated this term, but he refers to those tax "cuts" as actually being tax "shifts," meaning of course that the burden of that tax simply went elsewhere. Perhaps to a state or local tax. Perhaps to property taxes, or more likely into regressive fees and licenses. Or, in the case of universities, in increased tuition and fees.

Take my university. My chair told me that in 1980, state appropriations made up 40% of our operating budget. That is now down to 18%. Meanwhile, our dedication to science has also decreased and my scientist friends tell me that getting those national science grants is harder than it was. Little truth of those universities, is that those lucrative grants then get spilled over into the less expensive departments where research is an issue of travel and photo-copies, rather than labs and equipment.

Where do universities make up that shortfall? They do it, of course, in a couple of ways--they raise tuition and fees. Fees, after all, are the hidden costs for most students. Second, universities increase their fund raising to wealthy donors and alums. They promise to name buildings after prominent families instead of prominent scholars--leaving our campus with a journalism school named after the family that has produced some of the worst journalism in the country.

And there is the rub. That system works ok when the economy is booming. Wealthy people have a lot of extra money, foundations and endowments are growing, and tuition increases are both smaller and less noticeable. But when the economy turns down, a rather large part of the University's budget goes down with it, making a state "funded" university as prone to the boom and bust cycle as any farmer--actually more so.

I really wonder if my conservative friends will find that their tax cut from Republican politicians comes even close to covering the cost of their increased tuition.

Yglesias points to another example of this tax shift. When the economy goes down, state and local budgets are hurt at a greater level than the large fed. Of course, since we have cut taxes and reduced our dedication to supporting state services, those services often end up being cut at the time when people need them most. And in this case, more and more kids are relying on their local school lunchroom for their food source.

Think about that the next time you hear a Republican bleating about cutting taxes. Those taxes don't just go to programs you don't like. They go to feed people who are hungry. They go to help unemployed attend college to retrain. They go to help research new technologies that fuel the economy.

Ah Republicans: If the past is a problem, just change it.

Think Progress Foxx: Republicans ‘Passed Civil Rights Bills Back In The 60s Without Very Much Help’ From Democrats

I would just dismiss this as a very uninformed Rep, but I have heard this from numerous conservatives. Most, I would add, as this post notes, miss the distinction between Northern Republicans and Southern ones, and assume somehow that the conservative Republicans of today are the same as those Northern liberal Republicans.

But make no mistake, the current GOP is the GOP who opposed every measure for social and environmental justice. To say otherwise is simply a denial of history.

back to politics

Streak had another good night and once again awoke once in the middle of the night but then went back to sleep. We are experimenting with cutting back on the sedatives for a bit, and see if that actually helps him. He still seems to be afraid of napping in the morning, and here I am not much help, because I am afraid of him napping. Well, not the napping, but the waking.

Anyway. As SOF says: we are in the bonus round and will enjoy the bonus time as long as it lasts.

Now, back to the politics of the moment:

Firedoglake continues this long discussion about the conservative nostalgia for a non-existent past. And if you haven't seen the Jon Stewart interview with Lou Dobbs, then you might want to check it out. Speaking of non-existent, that is. I used to think that Dobbs was intelligent. I am now realizing that I fall into the same trap that everyone else does with him and Dick Cheney. Their appearance, voice, etc., communicates gravitas and intelligence. Their words, however, do not.

Dobbs is convinced that Obama is no different than Bush in that he is taking the country out of the middle. When Jon tries to get him to explain why the crazies didn't somehow accuse Bush of tyranny or taking their country away, Dobbs dissembles and distracts. I don't think he knows how to answer, because he is so far to the right (while still believing he is in the middle) that he can't see it.

But amazingly, he asserts that Obama is trying to hijack the country with healthcare, and that it is a subversion of democracy, and that is why the teabaggers are so angry. Jon does a pretty good job of noting that people voted last fall, but doesn't make it explicit that Obama won a hell of a lot of votes promising to bring healthcare reform. How Dobbs can then see healthcare reform as some perversion of democracy is beyond me.

I have also been enjoying Sullivan and others post on Sarah Palin's "book." Conservatives (well, the grownup kind) are also pretty dismissive. Rod Dreher's blog is not impressed and especially with her muddled form of populism where Big Business is a problem, but then also says that those who disagree with Big Business are echoing Marx.

It is fascinating, though, to read how she discovered through her work how big business gets cozy with big government, to the detriment of the common good. But she cannot let that knowledge get in the way of reciting her 1980s GOP catechism about the market. Weirdly, she goes on and on about how capitalism must be allowed to work, and let the creative-destruction chips fall where they may ... and yet later will talk about how wrong it is that Alaska's natural gas industry remains undeveloped because it's been cheaper for Big Oil to explore and develop natural gas sources in places where the labor and infrastructure is cheaper. Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but you can't complain about government meddling in the economy as a Bad Thing, but then turn around and complain about Big Business doing what Big Business does, which is to maximize profits by cutting labor costs.

And concludes:

But she is so far from being capable of being president of the United States it's not even funny. I know, I know, this isn't news, but you'd think that if there was anything more to her in terms of intellectual seriousness and judgment than we saw last fall, she'd have brought it out in a memoir she had most of a year to write with the help of a professional writer. But there's no there there. I'm not saying she's a bad person -- I don't believe she's a bad person at all -- but I am saying she's not a credible national political leader.

Putting that mildly, I think.

A better night and morning for Streak

As I think I noted the other day, each day has been a bit of a roller coaster. Yesterday was pretty frustrating and long. But last night, for whatever reason, Streak slept a little better. He awoke around 3 with a yelp (similar to his other yowls, but much shorter) and then we heard him turn around a few times and lay back down in his crate. He then slept till 6 and was awake in a normal way and not yelling.

This morning, I decided that one of the things missing for him of late has been the daily napping that he used to do regularly. In fact, you don't realize how much dogs sleep normally during the day until one of them doesn't sleep at all. I crated him around 10 this morning and went off to do work at Starbucks (and catch up with some friends), and when I returned at 2, he was up and alert and ready to go outside. He even rolled in the grass--an old behavior I hadn't seen in a while.

I have no idea what to think at this point. I really don't. This is obviously better than the previous few days, but I am still very nervous about what is causing these episodes. The crate, however, has allowed us some freedom and him some safety and security, and that is a good thing. As SOF has said many times, we are just going to take this day by day, and appreciate the good days and good moments.

Where we are today

I posted this on Facebook as well, but here is the latest on Streak.

Yesterday was one of those days where we both went from deeply pessimistic to optimistic and back again. Streak's episodes continue, and mostly when he is coming out of sleep. I spoke with my vet friend last night and he wonders if this might not be some kind of old-age dementia where Streak is just not sure where he is when he awakes. Once he calms down, he moves well, eats, etc., though he does follow us around a lot, and he seems to not want to sleep. But last night, I took him on a cold walk and it was one of the better walks in recent memory. If you saw us last night, you would not know anything was wrong.

But something clearly is, and this morning I think we are not sure things will improve. Perhaps they will, and we all want that, but I am not hopeful for that this morning. I do know that we will take advantage of the good times we have with him and manage the bad. We bought a crate for him to sleep in a secured space, and that has already worked wonders.

FWIW, I am a bit of a basket case this morning. I seem to fluctuate between extreme grief and philosophical distance. Some of the things that have been constants are no longer constant--and it is amazing how quickly that can change. If you see me or speak with me, be warned that I might break down. I am well aware that there are bigger tragedies in the world than losing a 13 year old dog. But, as all of you know, when you spend every day with a being, even when that being doesn't talk back to you, you tend to get used to their presence. We have been talking about how much Streak has meant to us. He has pushed us out of our little nest, made us go on long walks, made us meet new people and new dogs, and has allowed us to enjoy our community that much more. For some he is "just a dog." For us, he is certainly a dog, but certainly not "just" a dog. He has been an amazing friend and companion for over 12 years.

Anyway, we will continue to enjoy Streak until it isn't good for him. And we appreciate all the nice thoughts and emails.

Good thoughts for our dog Streak

I know I have not blogged much lately. Part of it has been the intense schedule with 5 classes. Part, at least since last Saturday, has been the stress of Streak's illness. We still don't know what is going on, but he has had these seizures when coming out of a deep sleep. They are frightening to all of us (though we are slowly getting used to them) because he yowls terribly and is obviously in some discomfort. They don't last terribly long, and when he is back to normal, he really seems back to normal. The vet is treating a bladder infection as well, and we think that may be causing him some of his discomfort.

Streak is now 13, and has been with us for a long time. I am hopeful that he will be with us for more time. His latest seizures seem to be less severe and that gives me some hope. But the continuation is troubling as are some of the potential causes. Today, I am just worn out and feeling a little out of control. I need to get myself together for a couple of long days of teaching and am badly behind in my grading.

I appreciate your good thoughts.

The paranoid style of Republican politics

A good post from Anglican.

My Aunt

My aunt passed away yesterday morning. Her passing was not completely unexpected, yet....

Today I am thinking of my mother and her brother for their lost sister. I am thinking of my cousins, and my uncle who lost their mother and wife.

She was a beautiful person and a beautiful soul, and was a gourmet and lover of horses, cats and dogs. But she though was also beset by an awful lot of inner demons. Over the years, those personal demons robbed her of her physical beauty and caused untold problems throughout her life and relationships, but her inner beauty remained. Her battles took a toll on all of us, but more so the closer to the inner circle. I remember her as funny and engaging, and always interested in my life--especially how my pets were doing. :)

I say that her passing was not unexpected. Her health had not been good for years. Yet, after so many phone calls and emails warning us that "she may not make it through the night" her passing yesterday morning surprised me. Those bonus years, I think, were good for her and many of her relationships, however, and I am so glad for them.

I am sad she is gone, and I will miss her.

The exponential problem of paranoia

Anglican sent me an email sent to him by a right wing friend. In that email, the person admitted that some of the email might be extreme, but that was what people on the right were feeling about Obama. The actual substance of the email was frighteningly paranoid and rambling. It had me thinking of the nature of this kind of thinking, and it is something that both sides have to watch, but it seems to be embraced on the far right.

It goes something like this. You analyze something real and come to that part where you have to make a judgement about something that is, perhaps questionable. At this point, you choose to accept the most extreme position, which in that particular issue, is probably rather benign. But that becomes the base line for your next decision, and so on, and so on.

So you look at Obama and believe that he might not be Muslim, but that his association with Wright makes him a radical or even non-Christian. Moving forward from that point, you now assume him to be non-Christian and therefore a liar. Since he is a liar, you don't believe any of the things he says that are reasonable (which are most, frankly). And since he is not a christian, and a liar, you believe those who say he is some kind of radical Marxist. And as a Marxist, then you approach healthcare and the economy with the assumption, not that he is trying to make things better, but that he is trying to make things worse as a part of his plan to force the country into Marxism. You take partial bits of evidence, and read them in the most extreme way: this email said that Obama had already "taken over two major industries." I think Ford would be surprised to hear that they are now part of a nationalized industry, as would those banks who are out from under TARP. But facts, at this point, are meaningless.

By that time, Obama has become a monster and is a threat. I think that is pretty much the path I have seen from the far right and Christian right. To be fair, that same process occurred on the left under Bush. I will say that in my defense, I hesitated at each of those steps to assume the most radical option. Part of that was my own lack of clarity. Was Bush stupid or malevolent? Hard to believe he was involved in some plot to allow 9-11 to happen if he is so incompetent that he can't quite even enact any of his policies. I would also argue that my final disgust with the man came with the evidence of torture and wiretapping--things that were documented and factual.

Anyway. Thoughts?

I really hate Grover Norquist

Taxing Matters | The American Prospect.

And here is a related random, and unanswerable question. How much of our economy has government investment at its base? How many of our consumer goods go back to some government subsidized research?

Finally, a counter to Freedman

One of my colleagues is married to an economics professor and he told me recently that most economics departments are still dominated by Milton Freedman-type economics theory. Every other department has been influenced by broader philosophical trends, but for some reason, the economics field has continued to be quite conservative. With that in mind, I am glad to see that Soros has decided to fund a new economics institute. It isn't that Freedman was completely wrong about everything, or that Keynes was completely right. But our thinking about economics has been too narrowly accepting of free-market ideology, and as a result, we have entire populations (and one political party) that believes that free-market economics is magical while government regulation and intervention is always wrong. This last 20 year period should make us rethink that, but so far, we have continued with many of the same assumptions.

Time to rethink a little.

More on the right wing's violent side

I have read Niewert's blog off and on, and he writes at Crooks and Liars as well. I hope he is overstating the threat, but fear that he isn't. Anyway, here is the book: Amazon.com: The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right (9780981576985): David Neiwert: Books

Interesting interview at Faithful Progressive with author Bethany Moreton

Faithful Progressive: The Faithful Progressive Interview: Author Bethany Moreton, "To Serve God and Wal-Mart"

couple of interesting stories

Associated Baptist Press - Fear Not: What does virtual rumor-mongering say about Christians?: "Gullibility may grow out of fear and anxiety, he added. And that directly relates to what people believe.
“I suggest to my students, ‘Tell me something about your fears, and I will tell you something of your theology,’” Tillman said. “Dealing with our fears -- an action usually dismissed or ignored -- may be one of the keys to understanding just which e-mails we forward and those we don’t.”"

and this one as well, which I can't help but think is a bit related.

Secret Service under strain as leaders face more threats - The Boston Globe.

Good news/Bad news for Republicans

According to a report by Democratic pollsters, the conservative wing of the Republican party does not hate Obama because of his skin color. That is the good news. The bad news is that they do hate him for irrational reasons. They believe that he has a "'secret agenda' to bankrupt the United States."

Better than open racism, and actually confirms a lot of what I see myself, but not terribly wedded to reality. What is further interesting and confirming, is that while this group tends to mock minority groups for their "victimology," they themselves are absolutely whining that their shared beliefs are mocked by elites. Of course, when some of your shared beliefs include a belief that Obama as President wants to bankrupt the country, perhaps some of your beliefs need to be mocked.

slactivist on the conservative bible movement

slacktivist: Apocalypseses

Well, this will ruin your evening

Everyone here knows I am adamantly against the death penalty. I think it is barbaric and beneath us, and I am amazed at the bloodlust that arises in this country. The evidence is growing that Texas has executed at least one innocent man, and I would be absolutely stunned if it were not a very high and shocking number. I know from past reading that Texas has executed people even when their defense attorney slept through trial, or slept with the judge.

And if you want to see the face of this death machine, watch the two clips at Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog. Watch them deny science and say that they are quite comfortable with using folklore and old wives tales to send a man to prison. Or that they consider a person who listens to heavy metal to be likely to worship the devil.

Texas justice is essentially sorcery, and there will be people who say that we can perfect it, that we can close the loop-holes. They're wrong. The problem isn't with loopholes--it's with us. We are fallible. Conservatives, more than anyone, should know that--it undergirds their entire philosophy. They don't think government can perfect much of anything. What makes them think we can perfect murder?

Sigh

At once a cool website from a design standpoint and one of the more offensive paintings I have ever seen. Just check out which side they placed Satan.

The myth of the middle class

Saw a great historian speak Friday night (James Kloppenberg) on Obama's connection to broader political philosophical trends. He made several really great points, but one was how Obama was unconvinced by the idea of "original intent" after noting the intense compromise necessary to get the constitution through. How could there be "one" intent?

During a post-talk discussion, he also spoke to the legacy of Roosevelt and the economic boom of the 1950s. (This column speaks to that as well.) Real quickly, as I run out the door to teach, I am reminded of what seems to be the biggest bit of conservative blind faith--that the middle class came out of some historical ether. The middle class that so many of us grew up in, was a creation of government programs dedicated to a more shared prosperity. That is derided by today's conservatives as "socialism" or worse, but it allowed one hell of a lot of Americans to live the middle class dream. Removing that government hand has led to the decline of that middle class (not the only reason, obviously) and conservatives seem to hold to some fantasy that a libertarian approach to governing will bring it back.

It won't.

What has become of the Republican party

SOF had a rough sinus night so our normal dog walk or sitting outside in the fall weather was shelved for Mucinex and tea. I watched the new Ken Burns PBS documentary on the National Parks and felt sad. Watching people of wealth and privilege work so hard to set aside some of America's treasures made me sad for today. Yeah, their concepts of nature and value were different than many today, and their motives were not always pure, but they valued something for the public good. Can anyone honestly tell me that any elected Republican today would go out on a limb to set aside the Grand Canyon as a national park? When there would be millions in lobbying money from the mining interests right there to urge them the other direction?

Hell, I don't have to play Kreskin. I know that they have gutted support for the Parks and anything public over the last 25 years. I am so sorry for those responsible Republicans who read here. I really am. I am sorry that I think so badly of their party, and so sorry that their party has been taken over by moral twits.

That is exactly what I thought when I read about Liz Cheney's rising star in the GOP. Evidently she goes to public speaking engagements for right wingers and is mobbed by people who just cheer every time she accuses Obama of not protecting America, or when she trots out the ticking time bomb scenario to justify her father's war crimes. She is mobbed by people asking her to run for office. Hard not to come to the same conclusion as this Tapped writer:

"For the GOP, torture is no longer a 'necessary evil.' It is a rally cry, a 'values' issue like same-sex marriage or abortion. They don't 'grudgingly' support torture, they applaud it. They celebrate it. Liz Cheney's unequivocal support for torture methods gleaned from communist China has people begging her to run for office."

I am beginning to understand why so many Republicans believe government is evil. When their people are in charge, it becomes that way.

Sigh.

If you ever wanted to see how much of a rodeo clown Glenn Beck is--just watch this

The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

I have to say that Katie Couric doesn't come off very well here either, but you see just how little there is to Glenn Beck beyond his roots of a morning radio personality. He isn't terribly intelligent. Smart in how he understands how to be a demagogue, but has no real understanding of the things he is talking about. All he has is some charm and manner of speaking. There is no there, there.

Sigh. Kirk Cameron connects Darwin to Hitler

So I have to post this rather funny and biting video. Not sure who the woman is in the video, and perhaps it is her accent that makes it rather funny, but still, she makes some good points.

The legacy of neconservatism

as the neo-cons say goodbye to Irving Kristol. Here is hoping our troll has moved on, but this is a serious issue, and one that Bartlett has also addressed. It isn't that taxes are the solution to everything, or that all taxes are good. But raising revenues is a responsible thing to do, and has been what responsible political parties have done--both Republican and Democrat. But since the neo-cons took over the Republican party, their response has been to gut revenues, and talk about cutting spending. They have been so effective --probably because, as our troll demonstrated, many conservatives are immune to facts--that most conservatives believe that Republicans have been better on fiscal issues. Hell, I used to believe that too, even after I became a Democrat.

Must read on taxes and spending

From Republican (well, perhaps former by now) Bruce Bartlett on why it is nearly impossible and a pipe dream to constantly talk about cutting spending.

I swear that I am starting to believe that 90% of conservative ideology (no offense to those conservatives nice enough to comment here) is based in some kind of mythology. One of the largest appears to be that Reagan did something magical to the economy and reduced the deficit, and therefore all we have to do is cut taxes and everything will magically be ok.

When I raised these facts with a prominent Republican recently he counted that Reagan had cut spending. But he didn't. Spending rose from 21.7% of the gross domestic product in 1980 to 23.5% in 1983 before declining to 21.2% in 1988. And that improvement came about largely because favorable demographics caused entitlement spending to temporarily decline from 11.9% of GDP in 1983 to 10.1% in 1988. (Last year it was 12.5% of GDP.)

Democrats have done a pretty good job of managing the economy. Not perfect but certainly better than Bush, and better than the Republicans who think that tax cuts are the magical cure to whatever economic situation we face.

More about racism

Stuff Some White People Don't Like | The American Prospect

Dowd says that Joe Wilson is coming from a place of racism

In her most recent column. I am not a huge Maureen Dowd fan, but this column strikes a chord with me. When a Southern senator tells Obama that he should show some humility when he spoke on healthcare, and then this other southern rep with his own iffy track record on race relations calls the President a liar on the house floor--I have to say I wonder.

9-11

I posted this link to my Facebook page only to be accused of "politicizing" those who died that day. This, by the way, from a Republican who thinks that Bush did a great job in the "war on terror." Oh, and who has defended torture to me on several occasions.

But it is the best articulation in some time of the problems of fighting a war on terror by using those tactics. As I patiently explained to my moronic friend, when we decided to change our values in response to terrorism, we did exactly what they were hoping for.

Anyway, read what a couple of military veterans have to say about torture:

"On this solemn day we pause to remember those who lost their lives on 9/11. As our leaders work to prevent terrorists from again striking on our soil, they should remember the fundamental precept of counterinsurgency we've relearned in Afghanistan and Iraq: Undermine the enemy's legitimacy while building our own. These wars will not be won on the battlefield. They will be won in the hearts of young men who decide not to sign up to be fighters and young women who decline to be suicide bombers. If Americans torture and it comes to light -- as it inevitably will -- it embitters and alienates the very people we need most."

"Let's Face It, In a Country of Three Hundred Million People, There are a Lot of Stupid People"

Heh. John Harwood: Let's Face It, In a Country of Three Hundred Million People, There are a Lot of Stupid People | Video Cafe:

"Harwood: I've got to tell you Monica, I've been watching politics for a long time and this is, this one is really over the top. What it shows you is there are a lot of cynical people who try to fan controversy and let's face it, in a country of three hundred million people there are a lot of stupid people too, because if you believe that's it's somehow unhealthy for kids for the President to say work hard and stay in school, you're stupid.

Novotny: Ouch.

Harwood: In fact, I'm worried for some of those kids, I'm worried for some of those kids of those parents who are upset. I'm not sure they're smart enough to raise those kids."

Florida GOP Chairman Warns Against Socialist Indoctrination of school kids

Florida GOP Chairman Warns Against Socialist Indoctrination Of Schoolchildren Through Obama Address On Personal Responsibility.

Gee, I wonder why I think the party is completely morally and intellectually bankrupt.

A rundown of the issues

Or at least some of them. At least someone else is noting that Republicans don't want health care reform and negotiating with them is an exercise in futility. Second, it is nice to see some on the right take on the crazies in their own party, but it seems to be small voices in the wilderness. When Chuck Grassley goes from rational moderate to echoing "death panels" almost over night, you have to think it is because the Senate is run by the crazies.

Oh, and the Wall Street Journal thinks that Dick Cheney should run for President. Gah.

Looking for good-faith opponents to healthcare

And not finding them among the elected Republicans or those who speak for them.

But I can't find them. Instead, we see Tom Davis, a famously moderate former GOP member of Congress, tell a 62-year-old woman who can't get insurance because of her diabetes that she should just go get a job with a big employer (good luck with that, dear). We see Tom Coburn, a Republican senator and a doctor himself for heaven's sake, tell a sobbing woman who can't get coverage for her husband with a traumatic brain injury that government can't help her. Instead, he suggests, "The other thing that's missing in this debate is us as neighbors, helping people that need our help," as though the answer for her and the other millions of people without insurance is to start knocking on doors to see if the folks on her block can come up with a couple of hundred thousand dollars for her husband's care. Again and again, we see people who have been given the power to make laws labor mightily to convince citizens that their most ridiculous fears about health care are true and that they've never had it so good. I try to believe that these critics are moral people whose outlook on the world simply differs from mine and that they are not actually pathologically indifferent to the suffering of others. But the longer this debate goes on, the harder it is to detect any light of human feeling in those working feverishly to destroy the hope of reform for another generation.

Heartbreaking story

But one that I fear is all too common, where medical bills threaten to destroy a family. In this case, a couple who loved each other deeply had to divorce rather than lose everything they had, and everythign they had saved for their kids.

A study reported in The American Journal of Medicine this month found that 62 percent of American bankruptcies are linked to medical bills. These medical bankruptcies had increased nearly 50 percent in just six years. Astonishingly, 78 percent of these people actually had health insurance...

Don't tell me that the opponents of health care reform stand for families. I am sorry. I just don't buy it. Don't lecture me on self-reliance when the health care costs are beyond anything any single person outside Bill Gates could handle on their own. We have a very dear friend who is struggling to rehab after a severe injury. He has great insurance from his military service, and well he should, but without it, I shudder to think where his family would be.

The opponents scream rationing and socialism. The reality is actually rationing and a bizarre capitalism where avoiding paying for sick people makes people money.

What we have is not right. And what we are getting from conservatives on this is worse.

Health care as a moral issue--updated

H/t to Anglican for this great blog post from Roger Ebert on the morality of healthcare.

As I have said before, I often feel like I have stumbled into some kind of rabbit hole where the people supposedly the most concerned with morality (and often critical of liberals as having no moral foundation) are on the wrong side of just about every moral question today. They are supportive of torture and torturers and in opposition to extending healthcare coverage.

I am afraid that for many conservatives (and liberals) politics has become just another rabid "fan" experience. Just as they cheer for their favorite football team even when that team is inept and loses, they now cheer for the GOP first and foremost. They are opposed to health care, not because of some deeply felt philosophical issue, but merely because their team is opposed to health care, and the team they hate (Obama's team) is for it. I understand there are thoughtful conservatives like LB out there who have thought about this from a principled perspective, but would argue they are in the minority.

Anyway, Ebert's column is well worth the read.

Update. I just noticed a friend's status update on Facebook.

is thankful that Jesus was wounded for her transgressions, bruised for her iniquities; that the chastisement for her peace was upon Him, and that by His stripes she is healed. (Isaiah 53:5)

I like this post, and I like this verse, but can't quite wrap my head around the theology here (not picking on this friend, btw, as I don't know how this particular friend stands on torture). This seems to me to be the conservative Christian disconnect--that their theology is based, in part, on the Christ's torture for them, but they seem to be uncaring about the torture of others.