Asking middle class workers to take pay cuts? Good sense. Asking corporate jet owners to pay more in taxes? Class warfare.

The wealthy are angry as hell, and they aren't going to take it any more! How dare Obama talk about the elite paying a little more? That is, as all the right wing punditry knows, class warfare. Asking people to not retire until age 69 is not. Nor is removing Medicare and gutting Medicaid. Why do the poor people need healthcare any way? Or assistance for nursing homes.

Why don't they do what the wealthy do and just pay for it out of their other fund?

No, when Obama dares to ask corporate jet owners to pay a little more in taxes, he has crossed a line of fairness that we all see. We all are concerned about those rich fuckers, aren't we?

And what is Obama and his evil Socialist Muslim conspiracy asking for? Good question:

"What they're talking about is a proposal by the president to have corporate jets depreciated over seven years, rather than the five years provided for now by, yes, a current loophole.

I will allow you a moment to regain your composure, or simply jar yourself awake again after reading that sentence, because this represents the sort of Existential Fucking Threat to the Republic that gets Republicans into a serious lather. Corporate jets depreciating over seven years, rather than five? My God, what monsters have we become? It's all right to nix new school lunch standards because feeding kids healthier food would cost more. It's all right to break labor agreements. Heaven knows it's all right to cut food stamp assistance or unemployment insurance, or tell seniors that Medicare is going away and good luck finding private insurance, pals. Austerity is the buzzword of the day—but tax depreciation over SEVEN years instead of FIVE? To the battlements! The comfortable, leather-appointed battlements!"

To deal with this crisis, Republicans are adamant that we cut. Cut. Cut. And then cut some more. It is going to be painful, warned Paul Ryan. But better to cut cut cut now than see the economy completely collapse--you know, like when we decide to arbitrarily default on our debts. Oh wait. No, the Republicans are worried WORRIED that if we don't address entitlements, somewhere down the line, we will all be in deep shit. And so we have to make those painful decisions now.

Except if you are wealthy. Then you get a tax cut now and a "thank you" for being wealthy.

#whyaretherichtheonlyonesaskednottosacrifice?

Rick Perry calls us all to a Christian prayer

This is, as Sully says, "Christianism," rather than Christianity. This is so inappropriate, and so much pandering to right wing fundamentalism that it makes me a little ill. And that says nothing about the fact that some of the things he is talking about aren't spiritual problems at all--they are about political choices. And this from the guy refusing to raise taxes while he cuts funding for poor kids. Fuck that.

Christianism Watch - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast

President Obama Demands Action From House GOP on Jobs, Taxes | TPMDC

President Obama Demands Action From House GOP on Jobs, Taxes | TPMDC:

"He repeatedly framed the debate in class terms, accusing the GOP of shielding the rich and powerful from sacrifices while demanding more hardship for poor and middle-class Americans.

'Before we ask our seniors to pay more for Medicare, before we cut our children's schools, we should ask corporate jet owners to pay more,' he said. 'I don't think that's real radical. I think the majority of Americans agree with that.'"

Michele Bachmann is our Fundy Troll

Well, probably not, but she is just as dumb, and the GOP, true to form, looks poised to give us someone even dumber than Sarah Palin and George Bush? Is that even possible?

But in this great list of Michele Bachmann stupidity, there is this gem on evolution:

"'Where do we say that a cell became a blade of grass, which became a starfish, which became a cat, which became a donkey, which became a human being? There’s a real lack of evidence from change from actual species to a different type of species. That's where it's difficult to prove.'"

You know what? That is difficult to prove. That missing link between a blade of grass and a starfish--or that other tricky evolutionary stage where donkeys become humans.

Seriously, does the GOP now just consciously look for the dumbest candidates they can find? Or do they just tap Pat Robertson's graduates without looking?

Centro-matic "Iso-Residue"

Quickly becoming one of my favorite albums of the year. So far.

God caught backing three different GOP candidates

Hat tip to Smitty for this insightful satire on those who claim to hear God's voice. Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Michele Bachmann all claim that God is telling them to run, so he obviously is pulling for them. I wonder how that will work out in the debates.

God hasn't been universally generous with his support. He went out of his way to let Mike Huckabee know that he shouldn't run for president, lest he take his focus off the much more important task of producing a series of conservative American history DVDs. And though God arranged for Sarah Palin to be chosen as John McCain's running mate in 2008, there's nothing to indicate that he backs her potential candidacy in 2012. Nevertheless, the fact that God has privately encouraged the candidacies of three different Republicans may cause voters to question whether, in reality, he really even has any preference at all.

God could not be reached for comment by press time, because, a spokesman says, he was helping a baseball player hit a game-winning home run, giving an old churchgoing lady the winning lottery numbers, making sure that a plane made it through the turbulence okay, helping someone survive a heart attack, and also, just for fun, creating a new animal that's like a cross between a leopard and an alligator.

Conservatives used to be rooted in reality

And used to be cautious. That is a point that Sullivan has made many times--that a Burkean conservative would not dismantle the welfare state willy-nilly, because that would be disastrous.

But the point about being rooted in reality and facts, and being suspicious of theory is Zakaria's best point in How Conservatism Lost Touch with Reality - TIME. This is not new to us, but a good rundown of where conservatives simply ignore reality in favor of what they want to be true.

"Many Republican businessmen have told me that the Obama Administration is the most hostile to business in 50 years. Really? More than that of Richard Nixon, who presided over tax rates that reached 70%, regulations that spanned whole industries, and who actually instituted price and wage controls?

In fact, right now any discussion of government involvement in the economy — even to build vital infrastructure — is impossible because it is a cardinal tenet of the new conservatism that such involvement is always and forever bad. Meanwhile, across the globe, the world's fastest-growing economy, China, has managed to use government involvement to create growth and jobs for three decades. From Singapore to South Korea to Germany to Canada, evidence abounds that some strategic actions by the government can act as catalysts for free-market growth."

The list is really endless, actually. Support for abstinence only even though study after study shows that it doesn't work as well as comprehensive sex ed. Or denial of climate change or evolution simply because they don't like what those might mean.

I would welcome a debate with conservatives who have both feet in reality. Watching the debate on taxation is like pushing through fog. Even though our taxes are at a historic low, every Republican bitches about how high our taxes are.

Is privatization the answer to our economic woes?

So say many of the far right. Government is evil, after all, and incompetent, while private enterprise is governed by the invisible hand. This fundamentalist view of the market never ceases to amaze me, even when that "invisible hand" put kids in mines. Those same conservatives won't even acknowledge that government was the entity that got those kids out of mines.

But back to the fundamentalist market. If the free market is always better than government, then it stands to reason that private prisons would be more efficient than public. But as this report suggests, those private prisons mean that they are always pushing for more customers. More laws that put people in prison, after all, makes those private prisons that much more profitable. What goal would those private prisons have for reducing recidivism, or even encouraging release for good behavior. Those social goods would cost them money.

Ugh.

And apropos of our conversation in the last thread, Republicans are bragging about the fact that raising taxes is a non-starter. McConnell laughs at the idea and Boehner explicitly says that it won't happen, because we don't have a "revenue problem." That just annoys the crap out of me, as we see more and more calls for the poor to sacrifice, but no calls for the same for the wealthy. On the contrary, they want them to get more in tax breaks.

Obviously I have been reading TPM this morning, but another of their stories caught my eye on this topic. The CBO actually projects that if we allowed the Bush cuts to finally expire, kept the ACA intact and allowed it to do its work--that the deficit would gradually disappear.

Why do Republicans only ask the poor to sacrifice?

I understand asking people to do more with less. I get the idea of tightening our belt. But why is it that conservatives only want to ask those who can least afford it to tighten their belts, but tell the richest people that they will actually be more rich?

Growing Chorus Of Republicans Demand Social Security Cuts In Deficit Deal | TPMDC

Dogs and humans

SOF found this great story about how dogs are cued to our facial expressions, and we both thought that we didn't need a study to prove that. We have watched our dogs respond to our emotions and our expressions, and our language. I always remember fondly that Alafair would leave the room if I used the f-bomb. She was so sweet.

This week I have been thinking a lot about my animal friends and missing Streak more than I expected. Last night, we went to dinner at our favorite Thai place. A couple came and ordered takeout, and the husband stayed outside because they had a bird. She said it was an African Gray and was considered one of the smartest birds in the world--with the vocabulary of a 2 or 3 year old child. I watched in amazement as the man cuddled the bird in his hands and talked to him. It was incredibly sweet. She invited us to come out and meet the bird and I realized that I was nearly in tears. I saw in that relationship the one we had with Streak and just missed him so intensely.

While we have always said that Grace was no replacement for Streak, I think in the back of my brain, there was this sense that she filled a hole for us. And she has. She has been wonderful. Today, I took them on a quick walk and we went past a house where one of the neighborhood cats lives, and always comes out to see us. Lemon always loved Streak and would just rub up against him. Grace has quickly learned Lemon's house and today laid down on the lawn to await him. She is so smart, and just so sweet.

But I still miss my friend.

On exceptionalism

A thoughtful post from Smitty on exceptionalism:

"How unfortunate that today much religion seems to be a force for making people unexceptional, for making them part of a rather unimaginative and uneducated crowd. Spiritually and theologically we are being 'dumbed down' in our outlook and perspective. Jesus took exception with those who were judgmental, but today faith seems to have become the means for exercising a severe judgmentalism. Jesus took exception with those who were violent, but how many times have we heard our nation's war-making justified on religious grounds?"

Pink is for Girls

Or maybe not. Certainly not always, as Natalie shows very clearly. Couple of interesting things here. One is the consumerism that drives much of our cultural discussions, and two is the sense that so many people assume that what is has always been. We can see that in a lot of areas, which makes teaching history so damn interesting.

Brewing Beer in Palestine

Total Buzz Kill

We love the Ten Commandments--but hate the foreigner

Fred does a great job of connecting those two threads in how Alabama both embraces the symbols of God, but then take pride in their turning away the alien and the outsider. I am not sure I am ready to say that God hates this kind of law--as Fred does--because I am loathe to speak for God. But he makes a great point.

But further, and speaking to older threads about Republicans embracing cruelty, he reminds us that they decided that "empathy" was bad.

That word empathy has, astonishingly, been turned into a partisan and contentious term. That’s astonishing because it required one group of people to surrender their claim to it — to voluntarily position themselves as being against the idea of our shared humanity. That stance is so outlandish that it leaves me gasping and grasping for a response. I’m not eager to accuse an entire political party of being sociopaths, but what can one say when members of that party, unchallenged by their fellows, rush forward unprompted to declare themselves proud enemies of empathy and proud advocates of sociopathy? They’re accusing themselves of something truly appalling, should we take them at their word? Or should we patiently attempt to explain that this isn’t really something that anyone wants to say about themselves, even while they push an agenda increasingly demonstrating that maybe in their case it is?

Sunday thoughts

Just returned from another hour of puppy training. Very helpful, but I must say that we are all exhausted. It might be the sinus infection I am fighting for me, but trying to get a rambunctious border collie to behave in a Petsmart is the other part, I am sure. Have to rest up, though because tonight we get to see David Olney and Sergio Webb at a house concert.

------

The conversation with Andy was also exhausting, perhaps because I have less patience with fundamentalism than I once did. But my last comment pretty much summed up my frustration with any of the "Bible said it, I believe it, and that does it" crowd. As I noted, when the Bible says homosexuality is bad, there is no discussion of motives, no parsing of context, no suggestion of language barriers. It is just assumed to be iron-clad law. But when the Bible says that being wealthy is bad, and even an impediment to God--that is prone to interpretation. It is only when you love money more than God--though who the hell admits that? Or when the Bible says that we are to love our enemies, the fundies, to a person, don't think that includes terrorists or really dangerous people. Surely Jesus didn't intend that we actually "turn the other cheek," right?

And to be fair, I have no clue. I think that we live in a far more complex economic system to conclude that charging interest is evil. And I have no intention of letting a terrorists kill me in my house if I have other choices. But neither am I convinced that either Genesis is a scientific or historical document, nor that the sexual norms of an ancient tribal society are exactly the same as ours, or should be.

But if we are going to parse some of it, then insisting on absolutism for the part that doesn't effect you? That is just self-centered and inconsistent.

------

Ok, one more question. Conservatives constantly say that cutting taxes on the rich helps the economy (always) because those rich people then invest in companies that create jobs and increase our tax revenue. Well, I think they are actually lying about the last part, and that they don't even intend for it to increase revenue, but that is another question. But about the job creation and investment, why do we always assume that the rich will invest that money here? Why do we think automatically that their investment dollars won't go to China or India?

Inequality

Everything I read tells me that our nation's inequality is growing. Saw this on twitter tonight:

According to Barron's, real family incomes have fallen 2% since 2000 while corporate profits have increased 70% over the same span #fb

I went to check the Barron's site and this story is behind a paywall, but this matches every other study that I have seen.

What puzzles me is why this is not a concern for so many conservatives? Do they simply not believe it to be true?

Conclusion shopping--conservatives and bad thinking

Saw yesterday that not only is Rick Perry thinking about running for President (since Newt is crashing and burning), but he is also pandering like crazy to the religious right by endorsing this prayer concert or whatever the hell it is.

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.

There is a lot that bothers me about this. First and foremost is the intermingling of politics and prayer, but more troubling to me is the bad thinking. I am reminded of how people processed the Minneapolis bridge collapse, or even the Japanese nuclear disaster--with many referring to them as "acts of God." They weren't. They were the products of human choice. The absolute same can be said about the debt crisis. This is not some act of God which humans are helpless to solve--it is the clear result of bad political decisions. Bad spending choices, and bad tax policy combine together to give us a debt crisis. If I were so arrogant to say what God thinks, I would speculate that he is looking at this and thinking, "fix it yourself. You created it."

I would actually argue that conservatives are mired in nothing but bad thinking right now. Facts seem to matter not at all to them. Facts about climate change, evolution, supply side economics--none of those things actually seem to penetrate the fundamentalist brain. All that matters is what you believe. When you believe that God can or should fix the debt crisis, you do, and you don't listen to mere mortals who point out that people like Rick Perry take federal money to shore up their budgets, while they cut taxes and cut programs for the poor and the sick. Facts, facts. Blah blah blah blah. What matters is what I believe, not what I actually know.

I was thinking about that yesterday when I read this story about Paul Ryan actually suggesting that we should default as a country (for the first time since America first borrowed money in the 1790s) in order to get our economic house in order. I have to say that I am really starting to question Ryan's intelligence. Either he is stupid or he is malevolently destructive.

But inside that Republican narrative is a fascinating bit of bad thinking. Several months ago, no one of Ryan's rank would suggest default was a possibility. That was left to the fringe. But a few financial people suggested it--just a few--and it took off among the wingnut right. The vast majority of thinking people think that defaulting is not only not conservative, but downright irresponsible. But Ryan and his idiots found one or two people to say it was ok to do--and that becomes their reality.

That is exactly how these same people process evolution and climate change. The vast majority of scientists who study these issues believe that evolution is fact and that humans are contributing greatly to our climate change. But the right finds one or two scientists who question, and those one or two become their reality. I would suggest that is a very stupid way to process complex issues, and a horrible way to formulate public policy.

But, as I said, when all that really matters is what you want to believe, then facts and evidence really don't matter. And that is sad--or would be sad if it weren't so damn dangerous.

Why won't evangelicals address torture?

Because I am off for a bit, perhaps, and trying to keep Gracie from eating stuff she shouldn't (remote control--saved, checkbook cover--chewed, leash for Abbie--chewed, toilet paper roll--shredded) I have been thinking about my evangelical past. That, and I have been working with our electric company to get our service line buried and have found their customer service to, well, suck.

So over the last few years, I have reconnected with a few people from my evangelical past--all through the glories of Facebook. Man, what a ride. From reconnecting to a former girlfriend, only to find out that she thought torture was ok, because of the "torture that the families of lost service men and women experience," or mad about healthcare because she honestly thought it meant her paying for the healthcare of the person next door who bought a 300,000 dollar house instead of healthcare. Or the guy from my church league basketball team who turned out to be one of the bigger assholes I had ever met--complete with bashing any government spending and regulation all while living in a suburb of Dallas built with government dollars.

Those were the negative ones. The others have been mostly benign. But when some of them have challenged my liberalism, or made snide comments on my wall, I have emailed them questions. Nicely, mind you, but I have asked them questions about why the people who helped me form my moral world view seem to have little to no problem with torture? Or why they believe that God created the world in 7 literal days, but have no problem with humans trying to destroy that creation? Or why, as people called to help the poor, they vote for policies that clearly help the rich, and demonize the poor.

All of these questions I have asked, in addition to asking anyone to give me an example of Sarah Palin acting in a manner other than a vindictive bitch.

Nothing. Well, not nothing. From one, I got a grudging acknowledgement that torture was mostly wrong. But the terrorists are worse, he said.

The rest? Empty echo chamber. People who routinely post Bible verses can't answer a simple question of why they voted for torture enablers and why they have no problem voting for people who still defend torture. Or a simple question of what the poor and elderly are supposed to do when Paul Ryan's budget is put into law.

Evangelical Christians--if you want me to even come close to respecting a group of Christians who have been miserably wrong on race and torture and gender equality--then you better actually figure out a way to make a cogent argument. And you better figure out that might include atoning for supporting torture. Or segregation.

Otherwise, spare me.

Today's GOP

Couple of points. First, any of them who like Sarah Palin need to see a therapist. Ditto that if they are conservative Christians who say they vote by Christian values. I have a challenge out there for anyone to show me an example of Palin treating anyone with Christian values who is not one of her supporters. When I get some proof of that, I will rethink the idea that she is a resentful, mean-spirited bitch.

Second, I mostly hear from conservatives that racism is an old issue. The fact (as Monk brings up often) that the Southern strategy was where the GOP started appealing to southern racists in an effort to shore up the South is irrelevant, in their minds. Just as many people note wryly, that there are no racists any more--no one wants to see themselves as racists--then no current Republicans will even acknowledge the open racism of their Confederate flag support, or the on again, off again support for "state's rights," or their support for Conservative Citizens Councils (once just openly White Citizens Councils). And now, with no racism intended, I am sure (blerg), southern states are doing everything they can to make voting harder. For people who believe our system is perfect, it is amazing how little faith they have in actual democracy.

History #AccordingtoPalin

Let's see if this works. You probably have heard that Sarah Palin was caught explaining that Paul Revere did his ride (very noisily according to her) to stop the British from taking away our guns. This has spurred some very funny twitter traffic, which you should be able to see here. Otherwise, just search twitter for #AccordingtoPalin.

Democrats and faith

Monk, Steve and I have an interesting conversation the comments, but I thought this was worth raising in a separate post. Monk and Steve both have suggested that Democrats have done a bad job of reaching out to religious people. But I argue that they have reached out as best they could, given the political realities and philosophical differences.

After all, how do Democrats--trying to emphasize separation of Church and State, while also downplaying the need to elect Christians to office, all while emphasizing social justice themes--fair taxation, help for the poor, protection for the environment, etc. How do you do that AND reach out specifically to people of faith? Are they not reaching out to people interested in those themes already?

I argue that Republicans are able to do that because their base believes that Christians are morally superior, and therefore have a monopoly on faith and morality. Their base also believes that Christians should rule, and that our country should be considered a Christian one. But Democrats don't believe either of those things.

Samuel Johnson was wrong: "Faithful" is the last refuge of a scoundrel

Ralph Reed: "Prayerfully," Faithful Are Going To Win 2012 | TPMDC

Quote of the day

‎"Why do republicans get to claim God and religion as their own when their policies go against 1000 years of traditions such as healing the sick and helping the poor.." Thom Hartmann

Ralph Reed--scumbag

Why is it that the party that likes to talk about moral values the most is the same one where being a lying, cheating, scumbag is no barrier to success?

GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Up For Ralph ‘Corporate Humper’ Reed’s Conference | ThinkProgress

Wednesday roundup

I know this is a common refrain from me, but I am still incredibly annoyed at how many conservative Christians are far more conservative than Christian. I think of a distant relative-in-law who stopped talking to me because I supported Obama. If I were an atheist who hated Obama, I suspect he would have no problem talking to me.

But it is even more disheartening when the leadership of the SBC gets it so wrong. Not surprising, mind you, but still disheartening because I know there are many Southern Baptists who listen to these people. Not all, as they are a group that doesn't emphasize that kind of loyalty, but many--especially in the south listen to idiots like Robert Jeffress who most recently took potshots at Obama's faith. Jeffress, much like Franklin Graham, is a political hack, not a man of God.

But what bothers me even more than people like Jeffress saying this, is that I know that a good part of the GOP faithful will just shrug it off--if they don't agree openly. Just as they shrug off the sociopathic Bachmann, or the equally twisted Sarah Palin. Palin, mind you, just cheered the smell of emissions at a motorcycle rally the same day that a new report shows that our production of CO2 went up dangerously this last year. Very hard to take people seriously who on Sunday preach a literal creation story and on Tuesday vote to destroy that same creation. Very hard.

-----

Speaking of Palin, she is on her bus tour. If you haven't seen a picture of the bus, it has her signature, a picture of the Constitution, and images of America. Everyone assumes this means she is running for President next year, and that would not completely surprise me. But there is, as the whore Mike Huckabee voiced, more money to be had if you are a pundit for Fox, and I would be surprised if Palin left that money on the table. Further, a Andy Borowitz keeps joking, if she runs, Palin would have to actually think about governing. I think his funniest tweet on this was something like, "the question isn't if Palin is going to run, it is who will replace her when she quits in 2014."

We can put Palin in that category of people who disappoint me, but not nearly as the people who follow her.

-----

Finally, a thoughtful discussion on taxes by our favorite conservative, Bruce Bartlett. Republicans continue to act as if our taxes are too high, when they are clearly not.

The state of Evangelical thought--or crazy Michele Bachmann is back in the news

Ah evangelicalism. Where any crazy sociopath can claim a message from God. And that describes batshit crazy Michele Bachmann.

And that is the lovely state of evangelical thought. After all, since the communications with God are internal and private, who is to tell? Who was to tell Bush that God didn't tell him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Just as who is to tell someone that they are greedy or lacking compassion. God tells them what to do--not some human person.

Body image, the Rapture, and a few tornados--oh and God

First, this very thoughtful post from Natalie about body image in the Christian church. Body image and sexuality are complex topics for our entire culture, but as Natalie notes, the church--while seeing themselves different and superior on this topic--often participates in the same consumerist approach.

Second, a couple from our friend Greg. Here he talks about the rapture in the context of a culture that encourages prophetic language, and does so with brutal honesty and compassion.

Third, here is his great take on how people talk about God's will or protection in the context of great tragedy.

I don't have to celebrate that "God was my refuge," when a three year old is likely fuckin' dead. Yay me? I don't have to say, like the douchenozzle did in the wake of the I40 bridge collapse years ago: "I'm a friend of God, and God takes care of his friends." (It was an Abraham reference for you folks who never actually read that book you're supposed to believe. James 2:23) Never mind that dozens were drowned in the river directly below him; clearly they were all pagans. The narcissism and individualism of American faith, not just Christianity (there is no more annoying person than the one who is "spiritual but not religious." It simply means: I make this shit up as I go, and I prefer what suits me.), would be unsettling if it weren't so utterly fucking banal. But in times like this, it is malicious.

Cruelty

I continue to be stunned by Eric Cantor's response to the people of Joplin. But I should not be. The Ayn Rand wing of the Republican party has taken charge. That wing doesn't actually value taking care of people, and actually thinks that helping people is ultimately bad. And a waste. This afternoon, I read about a freshman Republican who chided a constituent for asking for help.

"Hear yourself, ma'am. Hear yourself," Woodall told the woman. "You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you. My question is, 'When do I decide I'm going to take care of me?'"

Which sounds all great, doesn't it? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps and take care of yourself. But this is a retiree, we find out, who is struggling to take care of herself.

The woman followed up. "Why aren't you leading by example, and go and get it in a single-subscriber plan, like you want everybody else to have, because you want to end employer-sponsored health plans and government-sponsored health plans. You said so in a letter to me, that your goal is to get rid of the employer-sponsored health care [system]. So why aren't you leading by example and go out yourself, decline the government health plan and go to Blue Cross/Blue Shield or whoever, and get one for yourself and see how tough it is," she said. "You don't have any pre-existing conditions, I guess, you haven't had any life-threatening illnesses like I had last year."

Huffpo and others focused on the idiot bragging about taking government healthcare because it was free--and that is shitty. But I can't stop thinking about this woman surviving a life-threatening illness, struggling to find healthcare for herself, and having this fucking shithead tell her to just "take care of herself."

Fred, at Slactivist has a great post on this, and he brings it back to where my head explodes--that evangelical Christians side with this bullshit. Because they do. How they can look at any of this and see anything remotely Christian? How in the holy fucking world can they look at a party that is gutting the safety net for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled--and think, "yep, that is just how Jesus would do it."

If they can, then count me out. If they can read the Bible on Sunday, and vote for these fuckers on Tuesday, then they better not talk to me about morality. Or Christianity.

Tornado relief, and why Eric Cantor sucks

Here in Central Oklahoma, we just spent 4 harrowing hours dodging tornadoes and stressing about what happened in Joplin. But also a stress point was wondering if we were devastated by a huge storm, would the government help us?

We are fine, btw, but after the storm passed, I wrote Congressman Eric Cantor to point out that using the people of Joplin as a bargaining chip for some political agenda was a shitty way to do business. No, I didn't say "shitty" in the email, but the meaning was clear.

I told the congressman that I honestly hope this doesn't happen to his community, but if it did, we would be there to help out. Too bad, I noted, we couldn't say the same about him.

Republicans to victims of Tornados: We will only help you if we can cut spending elsewhere

Cantor Says Congress Won’t Pay For Missouri Disaster Relief Unless Spending Is Cut Elsewhere.

Of course, tax cuts for the rich are a given, but help to the victims of the deadliest tornado since the 1950s is optional, and Cantor is not inclined to help. We already know that Ron Paul thinks that they should rebuild themselves (which they will do) without any federal help. That is immoral, according to the great Dentist.

I used to think Republicans cared just as much as liberals about people in trouble, they just had different ways of addressing it. I no longer believe they care. If you can cut taxes for the rich, and tell the town of Joplin to suck it--then you are a cruel fuckhead.

The lie of small government policies

Is that government programs are unnecessary and can simply be replaced by churches and private charities. As idiot preacher Franklin Graham says:

"Graham replied: 'A hundred years ago, the safety net, the social safety net, in the country, was provided by the church. If you didn't have a job, you'd go to your local church and ask the pastor if he knew somebody that could hire him. If you were hungry, you went to the local church and told them, 'I can't feed my family.' And the church would help you. That's not being done. The government took that. And took it away from the church.'"

He is partially right. There was no social safety net 100 years ago beyond private charities and churches. But this belief that the past was some kind of idyllic past, is just ridiculous. Yes, churches were the last resort, but no, they didn't actually carry all the poor. Elderly without families ended up in almshouses where they were often abused and abandoned.

From the right there seems to be this perception that things were great until the 30s, and then FDR, as an evil socialist, came in and told the churches to stop helping people in order to make them dependent on the government. The fact was that poverty was a huge problem before, but the depression made it worse. And the churches and charities that were not taking care of the poor (not saying they weren't trying) found themselves completely overwhelmed by the depression.

I have said this before, but I love this essay's challenge. Tell the church to step up and provide the safety net, and we will disband Medicaid today. They won't, because they can't. And they have no idea what Medicaid actually does--and that it probably helps someone close to them and they don't even know it.

The right is driven by two approaches on this problem right now. The Ayn Rand branch that really doesn't care about the poor and is proud of that fact; and those who care, but are deluded about the role that government plays. Which is it? Ignorant or callous?

The Bible story you never heard in Sunday School

Natalie points us to the story of Phineas as one of those Bible stories that are just incompatible with other singular narratives of the Bible. And she is right, I never heard this story in Sunday School.

Artists raising money for recording

Is a cool trend, I think. I actually think that the smaller artists are able to do more in this new music environment than some of those with labels. They can raise money like this, and then they get more of the revenue from the actual cds and downloads since they don't have to share them with Sony.

I don't know Carter personally, but I believe my buddy Buff does. I like her sound, and have decided to put in some money to help her record this new album. If you are interested, go here to view her video and pledge. No risk. If she doesn't raise her goal, your card doesn't get charged. I hope she makes it, because I am signed up for a signed CD. :)

Can I quote REM yet?

Because I do feel fine. Not sure about Smitty's "Jesusly Aunt and Uncle (in-laws)", and I feel a little sorry for those taken in by Harold Camping's nonsense. This obsession with the Rapture certainly reflects anxiety and frustration with living on this earth. I get part of that, but this need to abandon the world strikes me as counter to the message of the gospel. Natalie points to an excellent allegory by Peter Rollins that addresses this very idea. And as NT Wright (and our friend Greg) notes, the belief in the "rapture" comes from one single verse.

And speaking of the Bible, I have been fascinated to read how the far right responded to Obama's Israel speech. I heard snippets last week and thought that he was appropriately critical of Palestinians, and noted that Israel would have to also make concessions. That is what happens when people negotiate--something Israel seems to have no interest in any longer. Not that the Palestinians haven't made negotiations difficult. They have. As have their Arab neighbors who love the rhetoric of wiping out Israel. Middle eastern leaders who love to appeal to their fundamentalist population--well, that just reminds me of the right wing here.

And speaking of that, it has been amazing to see the right rise up and denounce Obama as somehow throwing Israel under some kind of public transportation. What did he do? He articulated the same policy for the two-state solution that Bush and Clinton supposedly supported. But with Obama, and the right wing who wants to see him as unAmerican and foreign, this same policy is now treason.

These threads combine for me, because this adoration of Israel is wrapped in that end times bullshit of the Rapture. And both annoy me for some of the same reasons--an incredibly internal and self-centered faith. Ancient texts are not ancient, but were written solely for suburbanites who like bad novels. Settlement on the West Bank doesn't involve real people--both Israeli and Arab--but is some puzzle piece to bring on the second coming--for whom? Those same suburbanites. Middle eastern cultures, so foreign to our American experience, are somehow appropriated for purely American-centric points of view.

I struggle with my own faith. But I firmly believe that at its core, it is about understanding that we are not at the center of the universe--either as individuals or as Americans. That seems to have been lost in American churches waving flags and cheering torture. Perhaps Harold Camping's insane or cynical fraud will cause some thought about that. I am not hopeful, but will hope, nonetheless.

Republicans love this country so much they will destroy our economy to prove it

How Republicans Are Convincing Themselves That A Debt Default Wouldn't Be So Bad -- And Why They're Wrong | TPMDC.

Or, as I keep saying, Republicans are willing to destroy our credit rating, economy, whatever, in order to stop us from taking care of poor people. Those are some principled fucktards, that is for sure.

Why Sarah Palin is ridiculous

And that is saying something in this field of ridiculous Republicans. After Newt played the "blame the media" after being asked a perfectly legitimate question by a pretty lackluster David Gregory, good old stupid Sarah Palin jumped in to slam the same media. Of course, she slams them, because she is incapable of coming close to a real interview. She can only be interviewed by right wing hacks like Sean Hannity.

She is incredibly stupid and incredibly superficial. And, again, that is saying something. Even Republican Mark Salter was appalled by Rick Santorum's ridiculous comments about McCain and enhanced interrogation.

Former McCain aide Mark Salter was less discrete, heaping sharp criticism of Santorum on his Facebook page: "Ron Paul may be the wackiest candidate in the GOP field. But for pure, blind stupidity, nobody beats Santorum,” he wrote. “In my 20 years in the Senate, I never met a dumber member, which he reminded me of today.”

Santorum may have been one of the dumber members of the Senate, that may be true--though Oklahoma's own James Inhofe comes to mind, but it is hard for me to even wrap my mind around the decision of who is dumber between Santorum and Palin.

Paul Ryan is an idiot

And is threatening to undermine our economy for the foreseeable future, unless we stop helping poor people. That is about the only way I can explain the complete idiocy of Paul Ryan. Does he not understand that America has never defaulted, which is why we get money so cheaply? Does he not understand that this will result in higher interest rates for all of us?

I am starting to really think that Paul Ryan is the dumbest of a dumb lot.

Republicans LOVE torture

Well, except for John McCain, and he should be respected for standing up to the Bush torture apologists. But on the other side, Rick Santorum, he of suggesting that gay sex is like bestiality, says that McCain doesn't actually understand "enhanced interrogation." Yeah, sure, he was actually tortured during the Vietnam war, but for supposed Christians like Santorum, torturing Muslims has to be ok.

It just has to. Because they need to believe that we can do whatever we want because we are blessed by God. Even if it means torturing people.

Santorum is sick.

Racism, Stupidity, and the GOP

Perhaps you have all seen that the man who calls David Barton America's "greatest historian" has decided to not run for President. Part of me applauds, as someone that stupid would be a horrible President. But it is hard to applaud a whore--who's main motivation appears to be all the money he can make on Fox and the lecture circuit.

But the remaining candidates hardly strike me as either smart or principled. Gingrich is running and called Obama "the most successful food stamp president in modern American history." But of course, the GOP isn't racist. Not at all.

And what about Ron Paul? The populist, and principled libertarian? Yeah, he might be a racist too, as we know he has ties to white supremacist sites. But we know all we need to know about Ron Paul. Friday, he told ABC that government shouldn't help people affected by natural disasters. I am sure the people along the Mississippi love his idea that they should either not live there, or buy insurance. And if they can't afford either, they are on their own. That is the Ayn Rand philosophy.

And how about the rest of the GOP? Michelle Bachman has been challenged to a debate on the constitution by a high schooler. I think someone from the first or second grade might make that an even match. And David Frum (the same one who created the "axis of evil" phrase for W) finds the current Republican party to be crazy. They are talking about defaulting on the debt like it is manageable. Because they are idiots. Every small businessman, or anyone who wants access to credit should be jumping up and down, because if these crazy idiots push the envelope, they will see interest rates jump.

I always assumed that the first American political party to contemplate default as a way to achieve its political goals would be the Communist Party of the USA, not the GOP.

Well, David, you helped create this mess. I am sorry that you are now on the outs with the idiots, but you helped give us stupidity in politics. And this is what you get when you elect people who aren't very smart on the basis that they are earnest about what they believe.

On that note, however, I will say that Bush himself has responded well to the bin Laden killing, and didn't try to take credit for it. I am also reminded that he actually talked about compassion. Compare that to the Rand GOP, and W is starting to look more attractive.

No, Grace has not left--but the post on her has.

Or perhaps the post got out though a hole. Perhaps it will return by itself. Meanwhile, here are some pictures of Gracie to tide us over.

We need some updated pictures of her here with our crew, but she and Abbie have been playing so much that it is hard to get photos. :)

Janet Porter--crank from the past

My past, that is. I used to listen to religious radio in my old truck, because the tape player broke and sometimes NPR had boring stuff on. Don't judge me.

But one that I recall listening to was Janet Porter, and I remember her as quite crankish. But I had no idea just how far away from reality she is. Or I had forgotten. As this Mother Jones piece mentions, she was an acolyte of the late D James Kennedy, one of the right's more twisted evangelical cranks, and Porter herself has continued that legacy of what might be characterized as Christian hatred.":

"Porter has maintained that Obama represents an 'inhumane, sick, and sinister evil,' and she has warned that Democrats want to throw Christians in jail merely for practicing their faith. She's attributed Haiti's high poverty rate to the fact that the country is 'dedicated to Satan,' and she suggested that gay marriage caused Noah's Flood. And there's this: In a 2009 column for conservative news site WorldNetDaily, Porter asserted that President Barack Obama is a Soviet secret agent, groomed since birth to destroy the United States from within."

The piece sees her as part of Huckabee's connection to the crazies on the right.

And speaking of the right and crazy, my friend Rusty noted this (also from MOJo) about the Tea Party's view of the Constitution.

Among other things, NCCS uses materials written by Skousen suggesting that Anglo-Saxons are descended from a lost tribe of Israel; Skousen claimed this meant the Constitution may have been inspired by God, who intended for America to be a Christian nation. The very same bogus history has been perpetuated by the white supremacist movement.

Very little of the eight-hour lesson I sat through included a discussion of how the Constitution affects average people, or how it's been changed over time to reflect the nation's progress—such as the amendments giving women the right to vote, ending slavery, and lowering the voting age. Instead, my fellow classmates and I learned about how the original Jamestown settlers were communists who starved to death because of their failure to embrace the sort of capitalism that the Constitution was clearly designed to promote. We were also told that national parks are unconstitutional, because the Constitution bars the federal government from buying land for anything but military installations and post offices.

Article 7 and the Declaration?

Against my better judgement I watched the Republican clown show that is David Barton as he was interviewed by Jon Stewart. And he said something very interesting that I need some help with. He says that religion is mentioned 7 times in the Constitution, and that one of them is in Article 7, where he said (and I had to replay this several times) that the "Declaration (of Independence) is incorporated into Article 7?"

"The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names,"

Does he mean that the word "Independence" refers to the Declaration?

And this might clear something up. Because I have never quite understood why so many on the far right combine the Declaration and Constitution into one common document.

Gernonimo

During a recent FB conversation, I was told that the operation was named after the Apache warrior, while bin Laden was actually code-named "Jackpot." They also claimed that these code words are random.

I am not sure I believe them.

Because the poor are immoral

Which is why, I think, Republicans like Oklahoma's James Lankford defend oil subsidies, but hate any money going to poor people. Their plan to reduce Medicaid costs? To have the option of kicking unworthy people off. You know, like the poor.

Now that's how you save money: throwing people off Medicaid, or making it next to impossible for them to get it in the first place. Innovative!

But Rep. Phil Gingrey kind of gives up the game here: "'Take the handcuffs off the governors,' Gingrey (R-Ga.) said at the bill's unveiling on Tuesday, arguing that current law prevents the states from 'ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse, finding out if someone's falsified information on income…maybe even if they're illegal immigrants.'" The primary objection here isn't budgetary, it's moral. Many conservatives feel that poverty is a moral failing, and if you're getting help from a government program, you're probably some kind of scamming welfare queen sucking off people who work for a living, getting a benefit you don't deserve.

bin Laden's code name is Geronimo?

CIL sent this response from Indian Country to the fact that when they killed bin Laden, they sent back the code that "Geronimo" was "KIA."

This is, unfortunately, not new. During the VN war, enemy-held territory was referred to as "Indian Country," and many of the bases in those areas were named (or nicknamed) after western military forts.

This is a complex issue, and one rooted in our past. But like so many things, most Americans see it without any backstory, and for them, I think, Geronimo is not even thought of as being Indian. He is symbol, and icon, and has been, essentially stripped of historical context and personhood. At least, of course, by non-Indians.

This, of course, is the other side of the use of Indians as mascots, and unlike those, impossible to suggest that this is meant as a positive comparison. But in both situations, images of real people have been stripped of personhood and historical context. They become cartoon characters more akin to those from Star Wars than to historical agents who built, defended, and reformed communities.

The good part about that is when the Seals used the word Geronimo as a label for bin Laden, they didn't mean it as the historical figure who defended his people. They meant it as symbol and icon and cartoon. But the problem, as this article points out, is how Indian children see that comparison, and, I suspect, how non Americans will make that connection.

Ugh--Republicans again defend torture

Should not find this surprising, but Republicans are now saying that torture produced the intel that gave us bin Laden.

We have been through this argument before. The evidence suggests that torture didn't give us this info, but it doesn't really matter. Torture is still wrong. If utility is the measure, then there is no check on what we can do. If the terrorists life is worthless, and getting information is the only guide, then there is no reason to stop at water boarding, but only more reason to throw ethics and morality out the window. If the only moral equation is what we can get, then we can murder family members, cut off fingers, drill holes, etc.

When did the Republican party become the party of torture? At what point did that switch happen?

the post-bin Laden world

I have to say that today has been a surreal one. This day has historic connections--my students informed me that the same day saw the end to Hitler and Voldemort--which made me smile just a bit.

And I must say that most of what I have heard today has been thoughtful, though that may be due to the fact that I have listened exclusively to NPR. At noon, I heard a moving interview with a man who's son died hunting bin Laden. He was glad the man was dead, but had no joy or celebration in him. He had, as he said, "learned to leave hatred behind."

I am reminded of a story my brother told me years ago--though I have never been able to track it down. As the story goes, bandits attacked a buddhist camp and killed several of the monks. A visitor asked one of the survivors why they were not racing to track the bandits down and get some measure of revenge. The monk replied, "we learned long ago that we are not different than our enemies."

Maybe that story never happened, but I have always liked it. So much of our response to this seems to be cloaked in self-righteous rage and hatred at those who are different from us. But for many on my FB wall, the conversation is more muted. Most, as the man said, are glad bin Laden is gone, but not celebrating his death.

bin Laden dead

As I am sure you have all seen.

My first thought was that this didn't have to take this long. We had him at Tora Bora, but didn't do it right. Instead, we turned our sights on Iraq and an unrelated war. That has to be said. This didn't have to take this long. And this feels like catching a criminal after he has retired.

I understand that many will think this is the wrong time to point fingers. Or that I am capitalizing on this death for political reasons. Politics are sometimes just a game, but many times they are the way we get serious stuff done. This is serious. This isn't just about politics, but it is naive to suggest that politics don't matter here. And there is this. I am thinking of all the times I watched or read conservatives bash liberals for being unPatriotic for not supporting the Iraq war. And I am thinking of conservatives who have bashed Obama as soft on terrorism, or as one of my Christian friends said, "sympathetic to terrorists." And I am thinking that had this happened under Bush's watch, Fox News and my conservative friends might have passed out from the excitement. Disingenuous to now say that this wasn't due to Obama's actions.

My niece questioned the constant celebration on FB for a person's death. I see that too. I personally felt no celebration. Instead, as I noted, I was thinking of the past. I felt no celebration when they hung Saddam. I like the Wendell Berry quote from our friend Kevin:

"‎"Violence breeds violence. Acts of violence committed in 'justice' or in affirmation of 'rights' or in defense of 'peace' do not end violence. They prepare and justify its continuation."

And that is the really sad part of this. This won't end the killing.

On choice and socialism

Had dinner with a friend last night (SOF is conferencing in another state), and we had a repeat conversation about the insanity of our healthcare system. My friend is from Germany, and so is often incredulous at our healthcare system, and how difficult it can be to negotiate.

But his biggest complaint, and one that makes this pretty calm person get flustered, is the allegation that somehow our current healthcare system is preferable to some kind of "socialized" program, because we believe in a market and having choice. To illustrate this, he notes that his healthcare choices here are chosen by his employer. Yes, he can purchase an individual plan on his own (if he lacks pre-existing conditions) but would then have to pay the entire cost of said plan. Otherwise, he has to take whatever the university chooses. Same with other portions of his benefits and retirement.

How, he asked, is this choice?

A very good question.

More on irrationality

Good discussion in the previous comment thread on how irrational most voters are and how little they know (both sides) about key issues, including Democrats who believed that Bush knew about 9-11 in advance and the rather shocking number (59%) of Obama voters who didn't realize in 2008 that the Democrats controlled the congress.

I kind of understand the first poll, since there was a bit of ambiguity about the information that Bush knew. We know that he was given some briefings about possible attacks, so there could be some who were unsure simply because they might have thought that the briefing about vague "using airplanes" to attack inside the US is the same thing as Bush knowing that it was all going to happen on that date.

The second part is stunning to me. But then again, I know who my reps are in Congress (and have pestered them on the phone and through the mail). But I know many have no clue who represents them in Congress.

So, I am certainly not surprised to see that left and right are prone to conspiracy theories and bad science. My nephew posted this from Mother Jones about why we often don't believe science, and more importantly, how often responding with factual evidence doesn't help.

Couple of points, and then I have to get going. First, I am again struck by the fact that while left and right have constituents prone to bad information, the right has been more interested in exploiting those beliefs. At least, to be fair, of late.

Second, and more personal, the discussion about how we filter information before we even rationally start to evaluate it makes me wonder about my own biases. How often do I pre-filter information or news that goes against my belief system. I want to believe, and hope to believe, that I am open to new information. That is party of my perpetual doubt or skepticism. But I am not always sure that I do that.

Anyway. SOF is at a conference. So I better get the animals taken care of before the revolution.

PolitiFact | Obama releases birth certificate

And Donald Trump makes it an accomplishment. Is Trump the biggest tool in America? Hard to say, given the plethora of tools on the right. But he has to be close.

This is a sad day in American history.

Bible turned on its head

H/t Leighton

GOP cruelty in Michigan too

Foster children would be allowed to get clothing only from second hand stores | Michigan Messenger

The Onion, again, sadly captures GOP cruelty

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion:

"'My hope is that Republican voters will one day forgive me for making it easier for sick people—especially low-income sick people—to go to the hospital and see a doctor,' Romney added. 'It was wrong, and I'm sorry.'"

As we have said repeatedly, how sad is it that the Onion is trying to satirize the right, but actually fairly clearly articulating their approach to helping the poor and the sick?

The GOP's birther problem

I read yesterday that some 45-47% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the US and is not eligible to be President. Donald Trump's sudden surge in the Republican polls suggests that among the hardcore base, the number is far higher. Michelle Goldberg believes that this can only help the Democrats, and to a certain degree, I agree.

But that only works if the broad mainstream of America is actually skeptical. I am increasingly unimpressed with Americans' ability to process facts and evidence. The denial of evolution, climate change, or even economic realities of inequality--suggest that people believe what they want to believe, and to hell with the facts.

How American healthcare compares to the rest of the world

Full disclosure. I received this link in an email from someone who evidently promotes various web content and came across our little blog. Naturally, I am a little suspicious, but the information looks rather interesting. So I post it with that caveat.

US Healthcare vs. the Rest of the World | Business Pundit
Via: Medical Billing And Coding

Paul Ryan Gets Booed

After dealing with my tea bagger student three days a week, I have to say that I loved seeing this clip where Paul Ryan Gets Booed By Constituents For Opposing Tax Hikes On Rich. Further, polling from the WaPo shows that people are more in favor of raising taxes on the rich than they are cutting Medicare. And I think that the Koch brothers may someday regret stirring up this pot, because once people believe there is serious inequity, like other narratives, that will become the mantra. I really don't quite understand why the super rich don't realize that being seen as the top 1% getting all the money is not ultimately good for even them.

But in the meantime, the right wing continues to go after the middle class worker--when they aren't voting to end Medicare. Teachers, nurses and firefighters have been maligned in the right wing's attempt to demonize unions. I understand why the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch hate unions and anyone who would dare ask for more money. These people hate minimum wage laws and bans on child labor.

What I don't understand are the supposedly intelligent conservatives standing by while the right wing demonizes teachers and firefighters. Anglican noted the other night that the damn greedy teachers were often working at outside jobs to make ends meet. I used to understand conservatives. They opposed administrator jobs that paid too well, and generally opposed anyone lazy getting a handout. How those same conservatives now bash teachers as "over-paid" or "part-time" workers? I have no idea.

But I do know that any of them who either cheer this crap, or look the other way while the right wing does their dirty work for them--they should be ashamed.

Gov. Rick Scott cuts aid to the disabled

This is the logic of conservatism. Rather than raise taxes, they will, and are, cutting actual help to actual living disabled people.

I am starting to think that Leighton had it right all along, that the "death panels" (and other examples) are just projections of what conservatives want to do. Since that is how they would deal with it, they just assume that liberals will follow suit.

As I have said repeatedly, I know that many Republicans don't actually belief this, and want reduced government spending, but not cuts for the neediest. At least that is what my conservative friends tell me. Perhaps it is time to just change the name of the party to the Ayn Rand Party, motto, "We Have Ours, You Can Just Suck It."

What a week

I have not blogged in a while. Life has been hectic. A week after losing our Streak, we are doing much better than we ever thought. At first, I was deeply puzzled by that, but then we remembered the months of grieving before. But we also have found some (and I am not fond of this word, btw) "blessings" from our Streak. His passing has done what he did so often in this life--he has connected us to people. The outpouring of niceness and goodness following his loss has been amazing. Because of Streak, I am closer to some, and am watching other events unfold that are all due to our little buddy. And even people who didn't know him, but knew of him, and know of us--if that makes sense--are reaching out. One of my tasks this weekend is to write a letter to our vet. Not only did we get to know all of them very well during this last year (there was a period last August where I could have picked up mail at the clinic), but they did so much to help Streak. I know SOF feels this way too, but they gave us extra time with him, and then helped him leave in the most peaceful and loving way. And we know that one of Streak's last (though not apparently his last) gifts to us was our sweet Alafair. As I said the other day, her passing was awful, and I could not look at pictures of her for months without a punch to the solar plexus. But we have been able to really celebrate both of them this last week.

________

School has also been hectic. I can safely say this has been one of my worst semesters in some time. Some of that, undoubtedly, was the stress of Streak's illness. And some has been the fact that I am teaching 6 sections at three campuses this semester (half of them are online, so I am not driving like a maniac). And part of it has been the fact that my individual classes have been stressful--and probably mostly because I have a tea-party (he told me the other day) activist in my post-Civil War class. I have had conservative students before. Often. And often, I would say, for those who are serious, I have been able to connect and demonstrate respect for their position. I can think of several who clearly respected me at the end of the semester. They were still conservative, so I wasn't recruiting.

But this guy is in an other world. On Wednesday, right in the middle of this weird week, he told me that he would prefer that liberals not be allowed to teach at all, and that conservatives (true conservatives) are unbiased and have the truth. Liberals, on the other hand, are socialists who put people behind ideas. Scholarship from liberals is something to simply reject. I tried, again, to be respectful. When he mentioned William Buckley as his idol, I talked about Buckley in a respectful way. But, as with most things with this guy, he completely missed that and then told me that all liberals hate conservatives as a matter of course.

When I turned away at that point, he said that he had not intended to offend me. To which I responded, "you failed at that."

I am unsure if I handled that right. But I don't know how to talk to this guy. I feel like asking him why he asks me questions when he just dismisses any info that goes against his beliefs. Feels like a waste of time.

So that was frustrating.

But Thursday night, my friend who is mentoring me on mandolin took me to see Sam Bush play in Tulsa. Because of my buddies connections, we sat in on sound check (which was very cool), and then even got to chat with Sam before the show. As we had just watched him do a rocking song with his electric mando, I joked with him that that was "just how Bill Monroe played that song." He smiled.

The show was great. Sam Bush is a rock star on both mandolin and fiddle. He plays bottleneck slide on a resonator mandolin, but then can turn around and play a traditional bluegrass tune with the best of them.

To tie all of this together, one of the last songs he performed is called "laps in seven" which was inspired by his dog who was drinking water one time in 7/4 time. I thought of Streak and smiled.

Here is a version where Sam starts out on "Ole Hoss" (I think that is a 1936 Gibson) and then switches to what some call the "Mandocaster." In my show, he played electric the entire time.

Ron Paul thinks Paul Ryan loves Big Government

Which is just one of the reasons I can't stand Ron Paul. I have agreed with him on some points--notably his opposition to the Iraq war, but his opposition to the Federal Reserve, and the insane idea of everyone getting to use the currency of their own choosing--well, that is just insane.

But what really confuses me is the rhetoric of the far right about government. If you read through this speech (or the reporter's take on his speech) is the constant refrain of government undermining American freedom and "self-reliance."

“And if we don’t have a house, they’ll give us a house. If we don’t have education, they’ll give us free education. If we’re hungry, we get food stamps.

Who was given a free house? Who has been given a free education? Isn't there a key difference between a handout and giving people an opportunity? I don't deny that food stamps are handouts, but most of what government does is not that. A good example is Social Security, where if you work hard, you get more back.

But even as I was wrestling with this post, I saw this in my twitter feed, and this eye popping image:

And Ron Paul wants more of this, not less.

Republicans won't rest until every poor person is worse off

Congress Readies For More Budget Battles : NPR

And they are willing to fuck around with the debt ceiling to get there. Even if that means defaulting, which, as everyone with a brain cell knows, is the dumbest thing that even Tea Partiers could do. Hell, I wonder if even Sarah Palin is this dumb.

Actually, I don't. This would be right up her alley. All show and no substance. All cruelty and no governing.

And all of this, btw, from Republicans who still refuse to even consider raising taxes. I read this morning that Eric Cantor has already rejected Obama's call to raise taxes on the rich, because that would be bad for the economy. No problem firing public workers or cutting programs (that means jobs, Eric). But dare raise taxes on the rich and our economy goes into another recession?

These people are not only the dumbest I have seen in American history--well, since the last time they ran the government into the ground in the 1920s--but are also the most shameless. Whoring out for the richest 2%.

I know I do a lot of these rants. But I am not sure how else to face the world. As I have joked, I wish I could just turn off any concern I have for others and become a Republican. After all, I don't have kids. Why should I care if we screw over the next generation. SOF and I have healthcare (for now, anyway) and are able to pay our bills. Why should I care? Where do I go to get that part of my brain removed?

Morality and public policy

As everyone knows, I am stunned by the lack of compassion and morality from the right in these recent years. Using the cover of fiscal responsibility, conservatives are in open attack-mode on the poor and the weak. Slacktivist notes that even the Economist thinks Paul Ryan's plan is “fundamentally immoral.”

But I see this just about everywhere I turn. People on FB saying that they don't think that well-off Americans should be mandated to pay taxes for social programs, but think that they should be allowed to just give as the Holy Spirit tells. I know I am cynical, but I suspect that this guy's Holy Spirit would oddly agree with him that he shouldn't have to give too much. Or the woman on another thread joking about how stupid liberals lie and cheat to steal money for the poor and then stick conservatives like her with the bill. Or the aforementioned person referring to taxation as "robbing" him. Oh, and a friend of mine told me that his neighbor ranked Ayn Rand's books with the Bible in importance. I told him that his neighbor hadn't read either, and had to pull out this quote from Leighton:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

What is more, I hear conservatives everywhere saying that these kinds of social programs should be handled at the state and local level--of course, ignoring that they will oppose any taxations at the state and local level too.

I am still waiting for an answer from conservatives. If we remove Medicaid and Medicare, will the private charities step up to help those elderly who can't afford coverage, or those severely disabled, or those poor kids who aren't getting enough nutrition? Or will they just look the other way and continue to complain about immoral poor people getting abortions?

We are watching a version of Christianity that embraces cruelty as policy. Unbelievable.

Remembering Streak

It feels like we have been grieving Streak for a long time. It started in November of 09 when he had these weird screaming fits, and then, of course, went into high gear last fall when we found out he was sick. And to be fair, I have been grieving Streak since we lost Alafair--or to be more accurate, I don't think I have ever stopped grieving her loss.

Going through this with Streak brought all of that back out, but I think we both wonder if this is not a good thing. Losing Alafair was so painful. It was so sudden and also filled with such frustration with our vet (we since changed vets), and also with the helplessness of trying to give her some assistance.


Not that losing Streak has been easy. It has been awful. But we have already been able to look at his pictures and think about good times. He found us--as SOF likes to say, he "adopted me" one summer 14 years ago when he just appeared under our front tree. For whatever reason, he chose me, and connected to me from the very beginning. In fact, early on, we realized that Streak saw me clearly as the #1 in the pack while he saw SOF as #3 or #4. :)

I always thought that Alafair was "all in" with her love for all of us--and that included Streak. Her entire body changed when she saw us, and she loved just being with us. Streak, on the other hand, was so fiercely loyal. We used to say that he was our little "guard dog." In the backyard, he would run a regular circuit to check the perimeter, then would often take up a position with his back to us, looking out for threats. We got to tell him Thursday morning that we were letting him off guard duty, because we were pretty sure he wasn't going to stand down until his body simply failed. We had to let him go.

He was so smart, and so good, and so loyal and so devoted. And while I miss him so terribly, I also know he lived a good life. He was loved and he knew it. He loved and we knew that too. He completed his appointed task. I am often unsure about what happens after this life, but it is my sincere hope that Streak is reconnected with his friend Alafair. They loved each other so much. I remember a friend saying that his favorite image of heaven was a place where we got to reconnect with our animals. I would be good with that.

Farewell my sweet friend. You will never be far from my heart.

Back to the news

First, let me thank everyone for their kind thoughts and words about our losing Streak. It has been a very difficult week and we are still processing all of this. I will write more about my friend over the next days.

___________


But back to the news. A few stories caught my eye (as I was trying to distract my mind) that I thought illustrate why I am not a Republican and why I have lost respect for that party. First, this poll that shows that Republicans are less interested in compromise and are even fine with a government shutdown if they don't get exactly what they want. Never mind that actual real live people will struggle to make their rent and pay their bills. Never mind that school kids will flock to the Smithsonian only to find the doors shut. What only matters to these Republicans is getting their way, and only their way.

That is not democracy. Democracy is the art of compromise and the recognition that you won't always get what you want. I don't find Republicans to be serious about anything other than getting their own way.

Second, this story on Republicans in Mississippi where nearly half of the GOP still thinks that inter-racial marriage should be illegal. So much for small government, I guess. But also, this highlights the huge amount of racism that the Republican party curries, but doesn't want to acknowledge. The conservatism of the Tea Party and so many on the far right is the old conservatism of the South. It is a conservatism of white supremacy and racial divide. And yes, I realize this is Mississippi. I get that. But jokes aside, this should be something that mainstream and adult Republicans decry immediately. But they won't. Because those racists are important parts of their base.

Our sweet Streak

We had to say goodbye to our friend of 14 years this morning. I will write more about him later, but wanted to just note that this blog community was inspired by this little guy, and everyone here has been so thoughtful and compassionate about Streak and before that, about Alafair. In fact, for a 30 pound dog, he introduced us to an awful lot of people.

Streak's blog will continue. He inspired me when he was in the room, and will continue to do so. We will all be sad for a long time. Right now, the music is off and the coffee has little flavor. But in time, the joy and sound will return. He was a very special dog and we miss him terribly.

Republicans Embrace Cruelty

Not sure how else to see it. Paul Ryan's "roadmap" for deficit reduction targets the poor and disabled. He plans to eliminate Medicaid and phase out Medicare.

Just curious, Mr. Ryan, what will you do when elderly with pre-existing conditions are denied coverage, or simply won't be able to afford coverage? Is this the death panel nonsense Palin has been talking about? If you can't afford to live, then you die?

And let's not forget that Medicaid goes to help the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. It assists with nursing homes and people with severely disabled children. In the name of "life" Republicans want to cut those programs? Seriously?

We are back to the world I talked about the other day, where some conservatives simply don't care what happens to the poor and disabled. Since it isn't happening to them, they couldn't care less.

Then I read today that Florida's Republican governor has advocated slashing the budget for severely disabled children.

Don't tell me this GOP cares about the poor. They do not.

Still with us

Streak is still with us today, though I had my concerns driving home from school. When I got home, he seemed a little rejuvenated and we went for a nice walk. I have told him that he gets one every day that he wants one, and I plan on keeping that promise. But tonight he is clearly tired and not eating. That isn't sustainable, and clearly all of this is taking its toll.

I appreciate all the good thoughts.

Format changes

Sorry about the constant changes to the blog's layout and design. I liked the sunny sky of the last one, but found it hard to read. That, and I am looking for things to distract my mind.

Streak update

Unfortunately, I think we are looking at the end. His nodes are back and swollen and he isn't eating that well. If he were stronger, we would do another treatment, but we can't put him through that now. We are trying to make him comfortable and still taking him on walks--though those get shorter and shorter.

Not sure what else to say.

On empathy and conservatism and taxes and faith

Reading through some news this morning, I came across this story about Clarence Thomas' recent majority decision in a case where a man very nearly went to the death chair after the prosecution had knowledge he was innocent. As you might think, Thomas and Scalia have very little concern for this man's experience.

I remember when George Bush ran in 2000 and emphasized "compassionate conservatism." While we found that there were a lot of limits to his compassion, it was an interesting idea, and one that many of us found to be appealing. The interesting part of this, however, was how many conservatives were uninterested in the concept of compassion.

This recent debate about taxation and policies seem to highlight this issue, and I am convinced there are two different conservative approaches. One, like many of my conservative friends, is the group that really wants to help the poor, but who simply disagree on the best way to accomplish that task. They worry that government is not the best way, or that they can encourage bad behavior, or that government is simply too incompetent to deliver the assistance. Those people, I think, we can work with, as they have a shared concern in the issues of the poor and disabled.

But the other side, and the one that scares me the most, are the Clarence Thomas/Tea Partiers who follow Ayn Rand was right and that helping people is a bad idea. They don't want to fund nutrition or healthcare, because they genuinely lack any concern for their fellow man. I think these are in the minority, but they are a vocal minority. They remind me of the small minority here in Norman who successfully blocked curbside recycling because they didn't want to pay 3 dollars more a month. Of course, with assistance to the poor, it has horrible implications.

We see this with Paul Ryan's recent proposal, which as far as I hear, will get most of its cuts from reducing Medicaid. Hell, those poor and disabled probably don't vote that much, so much easier to go after them instead of daring to alienate those who benefit from government programs but don't want to acknowledge that. It is an example of this kind of apathy, and the shitty approach to governing that the Republicans prefer. "Let's go after the poor and disabled." Gah.

Time for the compassionate conservatives to step up. Maybe that means that we cut programs that liberals actually like, but ones that can be managed in the private sphere. My fear, of course, is that the conservatives who want to cut all of this assistance, with the excuse that private charities can pick up the slack--is of course that they won't, and the conservatives will simply look the other way. Just as they did on torture. And just as they are doing on protecting what they call God's creation.

Sigh.

More reason to loathe conservatives who use religion

This, from one of the Wisconsin Republicans targeted for recall (and evidently the Democrats have the signatures to start the recall--or however that happens--for this tool). Anyway, he has taken to telling crowds that he has found Jesus in this process. Or something. And check out what he says about the idiot governor.

"I'm not ashamed to tell you I've read the Bible more than I ever have," Kapanke said.

"Awesome," a woman in the crowd said.

"So have we," said another man.

Kapanke shared a story of meeting one-on-one with Walker, who he said had a book about leadership through the Bible.

"How can you go wrong following a leader that obviously gets his mission on this earth?" Kapanke asked.

What a moron, and shame on every Christian listening who didn't just wince at that comment. If they really think that Walker is on a "mission from God" to destroy unions, then they might as well shred their Bibles. They aren't using them, and certainly aren't using any brain cells.

The legacy of Woody Guthrie

I have been a fan of Mark Erelli since Zalm first pointed me to his work. We have seen him perform locally twice, and will easily go the next time he is town. Great voice and he even plays the same model mandolin as me. Heh.

Anyway, you can hear the protest refrain in much of his music, including several songs that are clearly anti-war. Today, I read his newsletter and saw that he is also animated by the attacks on unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere:

As the son of two teachers, I have seen firsthand the hours of "off the clock" time and personal money some teachers invest to improve classrooms and curricula for their students. I have seen firsthand the second jobs some teachers take to supplement their income, which often isn't so high that they can afford to live in the communities where they teach. I take it a bit personally when I see talking heads on Fox News or read anonymous online commentaries belittling the teaching profession. This kind of invective strikes at the very heart of the American Dream that you can gain a better life for you and your family through hard work, persistence and education.

Indeed, the American Dream has taken quite a hit in recent years. We have "American Idol," but there's no popular TV show called "American Expert." We deride the educated as "elites," preferring instead the sexier narrative that one event or contest could pluck anyone from obscurity and set them on a pedestal to be revered and worshiped. We subscribe wholeheartedly to the "lottery myth"--that one sudden, transformational event can deliver us from obscurity or poverty overnight simply by buying a ticket. In a bit of twisted irony, we often use our lottery proceeds to fund our educational systems, which aren't valued enough to be shielded from budgetary jeopardy in the first place. What would our country look like if we truly valued education as much as we profess?

I read this after seeing that our local university just agreed to pay our next basketball coach a huge salary to lure him from Nevada--all while cutting funding for graduate students, denying raises to hardworking faculty and staff, and actually undermining the educational mission of the university. I fear that most universities are run like this, however, and they actually mirror the broader divide in American society--with the very top few doing very well and the bottom of the pyramid told to suck it.

Streak update

Not sure where we are today. After a few days of not eating, he started, but we noticed that his lymph nodes have come back. The vet was very hesitant to start another round, and we have decided to move slowly. He isn't moving well, and we are taking it a day at a time. One tough little guy, but his body continues to betray his mind, and that is tough to watch.

Here are your death panels

Let's remember that much of our budget shortfall--as with the state budgets--is self-imposed by people who believe in the magic of tax cuts. But here is a situation where that self-imposed budget shortfall and the accompanying "we can't fund everything" will lead to actual people dying. USAID administrator Rajiv Shah testified that this budget will result in the deaths of at least 70,000 children around the world.

Right on cue, the Republican said:

While I understand the value of many of these important programs, the funding request for next year is -- is truly unrealistic in today's budget environment," she said. "We simply cannot fund everything that has been funded in the past. And we certainly cannot continue to fund programs that are duplicative and wasteful."

She went on to say that she would support programs that have national security implications, not realizing that global poverty actually contributes to threats against us--something the military understands. But not the Republican party.

And regardless of whether it ultimately threatens us, it is a direct threat to those 70,000 kids. So, while this same congress will cut funding for Planned Parenthood in the name of life, they will cut funding for poor, non-white, non-American children around the world, and will undoubtedly brag to their constituents that they cut some "redundant" or "wasteful" program.

They will probably have a town meeting that includes a prayer and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. I am beginning to think that Samuel Johnson, were he with us today, would add "Christian" to the quote about patriots and scoundrels.