I have been watching Land off and on over the years, and have had moments where I almost respected him. He was one of few SBC leaders to apologize for slavery and segregation--albeit years after when it was safe to do.
But it is clear that he is a shameless liar for the right. And a further reminder that the bogie men of my youth were misplaced. It wasn't the feminists I needed to fear, but the Souther Baptist leaders--wrapped in the flag and carrying a Bible.
I will also say that watching the Republican party drive our country's economy off the cliff, I am reminded how many of them proclaim their Christian faith. That has worked out so well, hasn't it?
July 26, 2011
Don't dare tell me Republicans care about the deficit
Because they don't. I read yesterday that this debt crisis will surely end up raising the cost of borrowing for the country. A 1% increase in the interest rate will cost us an additional trillion fucking dollars in interest payments. So when Boehner and Cantor and the rest of the Republican assholes say they are only interested in us "living within our means," they are lying through their teeth.
This is not about the deficit. This is about two things. One, is the Tea Party idiots who have taken a pretty decent democratic model and fucked it up. Turns out that democracy doesn't actually work well when one side doesn't believe in compromise or negotiation. And the Second is the conservative right's absolute hatred of any social safety net.
My Republican friends all tell me they support some safety net, they just want it under control. Well, they should really check with the sociopaths running their party, because the GOP would prefer that Grannie be left on the sidewalk when she can no longer afford her meds or rent.
Don't tell me they care about the deficit, and don't tell me that the GOP doesn't hate poor and working people.
This is not about the deficit. This is about two things. One, is the Tea Party idiots who have taken a pretty decent democratic model and fucked it up. Turns out that democracy doesn't actually work well when one side doesn't believe in compromise or negotiation. And the Second is the conservative right's absolute hatred of any social safety net.
My Republican friends all tell me they support some safety net, they just want it under control. Well, they should really check with the sociopaths running their party, because the GOP would prefer that Grannie be left on the sidewalk when she can no longer afford her meds or rent.
Don't tell me they care about the deficit, and don't tell me that the GOP doesn't hate poor and working people.
July 24, 2011
Taxes as wasted consumer spending
Interesting to talk to people about taxes. I understand that historically people have not wanted to pay taxes, and of course, we have our "taxation without representation" cry from the American Revolution (that is partially true, at least). And there is little doubt that the Republican party has seized on that as a rallying cry and easy way to get votes. "I will cut your taxes, no matter how low they get, and you can be free and have what you want." That is a pretty easy sell.
But what bugs me is how dismissive conservatives have become about taxes as if they are all bad. I know I have said this before, but my taxes go to help disabled and poor--to help people overseas avoid malaria and AIDS. Of course, my taxes also go to sugar subsidies and torture rooms. None of us ever get everything we want from taxes or government--a truism if there ever was.
However, in this day and age where we are supposed to imagine the federal government as a household budget that should live within its means, it might be instructive to take those Republican tactics and actually put them through a household budget. (Make no mistake, the largest economy in the world should not be managed as a household budget, but just hear me out.)
First, of course, this national household budget has done the opposite of what most actual budgets try to do--it has taken a purposeful salary reduction and is always fighting to bring in less money. I know of no household who does this on purpose. Second, this national budget seems to see all taxes and expenditures as wasteful. It is as if we, as a family, simply decided to not pay for a roof, because it was not fun, or tires for the car, or oil changes for the car. So many of those costs are not ones that we get to enjoy or play with, but are ever so necessary and are not wasteful at all. They allow us to have cover, or transportation, or heat and air, etc.
But Conservatives have sold the bill of goods that your tax money doesn't get you anything, because it goes to the government instead of to something you like. But it goes to invest in schools, and public health, and infrastructure, and the healthcare for others. Because we all live in a broader community and are harmed when our neighbors are sick or under educated, or when the roads and sewers don't work.
If Progressives could do anything, it would be to identify the actual benefits from taxes--things that benefit even the anti-tax people. Things like Medicaid support for nursing home care, or matching funds for police and fire services, or for cleaner and healthier water systems. Investments in technology that, I would argue, probably lay somewhere in the process of every technology we enjoy today. Investments that have allowed millions to build small and large businesses.
But what bugs me is how dismissive conservatives have become about taxes as if they are all bad. I know I have said this before, but my taxes go to help disabled and poor--to help people overseas avoid malaria and AIDS. Of course, my taxes also go to sugar subsidies and torture rooms. None of us ever get everything we want from taxes or government--a truism if there ever was.
However, in this day and age where we are supposed to imagine the federal government as a household budget that should live within its means, it might be instructive to take those Republican tactics and actually put them through a household budget. (Make no mistake, the largest economy in the world should not be managed as a household budget, but just hear me out.)
First, of course, this national household budget has done the opposite of what most actual budgets try to do--it has taken a purposeful salary reduction and is always fighting to bring in less money. I know of no household who does this on purpose. Second, this national budget seems to see all taxes and expenditures as wasteful. It is as if we, as a family, simply decided to not pay for a roof, because it was not fun, or tires for the car, or oil changes for the car. So many of those costs are not ones that we get to enjoy or play with, but are ever so necessary and are not wasteful at all. They allow us to have cover, or transportation, or heat and air, etc.
But Conservatives have sold the bill of goods that your tax money doesn't get you anything, because it goes to the government instead of to something you like. But it goes to invest in schools, and public health, and infrastructure, and the healthcare for others. Because we all live in a broader community and are harmed when our neighbors are sick or under educated, or when the roads and sewers don't work.
If Progressives could do anything, it would be to identify the actual benefits from taxes--things that benefit even the anti-tax people. Things like Medicaid support for nursing home care, or matching funds for police and fire services, or for cleaner and healthier water systems. Investments in technology that, I would argue, probably lay somewhere in the process of every technology we enjoy today. Investments that have allowed millions to build small and large businesses.
July 23, 2011
On Evangelicals and the GOP
As we watch the GOP drive our economy over the cliff rather than possibly cause the elites any discomfort, I have been thinking about how the evangelicals I know can support these policies. Part of it is in these "dog whistle" moments such as when Tim Pawlenty names Jesus as one of his favorite political heroes, but then will govern as a purely conservative politician--with no real mention of Jesus when he cuts programs for the poor or defends torture.
For my evangelical friends, I think they have been co-opted in a way that they don't even understand. The GOP knows they are very uncomfortable with abortion and gay rights, and largely uninformed about broader political issues. So, they will vote for the GOP out of an assumption of moral superiority, and never really check back. They vote for Republicans on the basis of being "pro-life" and then never notice that the GOP defends and openly encourages torture and more war. They vote for fiscal responsibility and look the other way while the party defends only the rich. Our friend Kevin Powell caught this nice bit from Huffington Post on why evangelicalism is losing the younger generation, and a big part of that is their sexism and complete sell out to conservative politics.
I am starting to think that Google+'s new approach to social networking is a good way to see the evangelical's political world. One circle is the personal relationship where God is about them, and their personal "walk with Christ." That is where the lion's share of evangelicals books and discussions trend--how can you walk closely with God and how can he make you happier.
Then there is that circle named politics. It is one filled with myths about "pulling your self up by your bootstraps," and "individualism" and "the market economy" solving everything. It is a cold and ruthless place where people who don't work hard enough get left behind, and those who don't have enough to pay for healthcare are on their own. It is the world of Thomas Hobbes rather than that of the Gospel. And that is important, because in that circle, the only Bible verses are about God smiting people who are gay and the assumption that abortion is evil.
When we want to be spiritual, we enter the spiritual circle and talk about relationships over religion. When we want to be political, we switch circles and talk about tough choices and how wasteful government is. There is only one place for Christianity in politics. It is to get an entrance ticket, and then never be asked about it again--and then only for conservatives.
Sad. As SOF reminded me this afternoon, the OT has a lot of challenges to that kind of politics, but all we hear about are the passages from Leviticus about homosexuality. Nothing about abandoning the poor. Nothing about the evils of the rich exploiting the poor. Nothing about the need for people of faith to defend the oppressed rather than the comfortable.
For my evangelical friends, I think they have been co-opted in a way that they don't even understand. The GOP knows they are very uncomfortable with abortion and gay rights, and largely uninformed about broader political issues. So, they will vote for the GOP out of an assumption of moral superiority, and never really check back. They vote for Republicans on the basis of being "pro-life" and then never notice that the GOP defends and openly encourages torture and more war. They vote for fiscal responsibility and look the other way while the party defends only the rich. Our friend Kevin Powell caught this nice bit from Huffington Post on why evangelicalism is losing the younger generation, and a big part of that is their sexism and complete sell out to conservative politics.
I am starting to think that Google+'s new approach to social networking is a good way to see the evangelical's political world. One circle is the personal relationship where God is about them, and their personal "walk with Christ." That is where the lion's share of evangelicals books and discussions trend--how can you walk closely with God and how can he make you happier.
Then there is that circle named politics. It is one filled with myths about "pulling your self up by your bootstraps," and "individualism" and "the market economy" solving everything. It is a cold and ruthless place where people who don't work hard enough get left behind, and those who don't have enough to pay for healthcare are on their own. It is the world of Thomas Hobbes rather than that of the Gospel. And that is important, because in that circle, the only Bible verses are about God smiting people who are gay and the assumption that abortion is evil.
When we want to be spiritual, we enter the spiritual circle and talk about relationships over religion. When we want to be political, we switch circles and talk about tough choices and how wasteful government is. There is only one place for Christianity in politics. It is to get an entrance ticket, and then never be asked about it again--and then only for conservatives.
Sad. As SOF reminded me this afternoon, the OT has a lot of challenges to that kind of politics, but all we hear about are the passages from Leviticus about homosexuality. Nothing about abandoning the poor. Nothing about the evils of the rich exploiting the poor. Nothing about the need for people of faith to defend the oppressed rather than the comfortable.
Republican economics: cut wages, cut benefits, turn employees over to Medicaid--cut Medicaid
Saw this tweet a few minutes ago:
If this isn't a war on the poor, then someone should explain it to me.
In Arizona, 2700 Wal-Mart workers are on Medicaid because it is impossible for them to afford healthcare.”Just did a simple Google Search.
If this isn't a war on the poor, then someone should explain it to me.
July 22, 2011
Republicans are irresponsible. Period.
Word comes tonight that Republicans have broken off talks with the White House on the debt ceiling. As Pandagon notes, this isn't rational:
A Republican friend of mine asked me if I thought that Republicans didn't care about the poor and elderly. I told him, truthfully, that I thought most actual Republican voters were not like that. He is a good example of someone who does a lot of work to help people. But he doesn't seem to recognize what his party is doing in his name. He has been distracted by abortions and gays, and simply assumes that the Republicans are actually fiscally responsible.
They are not. And they aren't even close.
"I love Republicans saying no plan has been offered and then saying that Obama's plan would be terrible. #logic"What I love is that Republicans are so concerned about the deficit that they want only the poor and elderly to pay. Rich Republicans and Democrats need not be bothered. But if you are poor and disabled, or elderly and on a fixed budget, or about to be elderly, or about to be poor--their word to you is to "suck it."
A Republican friend of mine asked me if I thought that Republicans didn't care about the poor and elderly. I told him, truthfully, that I thought most actual Republican voters were not like that. He is a good example of someone who does a lot of work to help people. But he doesn't seem to recognize what his party is doing in his name. He has been distracted by abortions and gays, and simply assumes that the Republicans are actually fiscally responsible.
They are not. And they aren't even close.
July 21, 2011
Allen West claims that we don't like him because he is a black conservative
And even says that we are mad because he got off our "21st-century plantation, and they cannot afford to have a strong voice such as mine out there, reverberating and resonating across this country."
Yeah? No. Actually, we don't like you because you are an asshole who took a criticism of your policy stances (legitimate) and then decided to respond by disparaging a woman as not "a Lady" and therefore not worthy of his respect.
West: Wasserman Schultz And Dems Attack Me Because I'm A Black Conservative (AUDIO) | TPMDC
Oh, and remember that this is the guy who tortured a detainee in Iraq, was nearly charged for it, and brags about it to this day.
Asshole.
Yeah? No. Actually, we don't like you because you are an asshole who took a criticism of your policy stances (legitimate) and then decided to respond by disparaging a woman as not "a Lady" and therefore not worthy of his respect.
West: Wasserman Schultz And Dems Attack Me Because I'm A Black Conservative (AUDIO) | TPMDC
Oh, and remember that this is the guy who tortured a detainee in Iraq, was nearly charged for it, and brags about it to this day.
Asshole.
July 18, 2011
First economic disaster caused by spite
Watching this horror show in Washington is making me a little ill. We have Republicans openly arguing that their government should default on its debts as a statement of fiscal responsibility. Yes, they think that not paying what we owe is responsible.
Idiots.
And let's not forget that a good bulk of the economic problems we have were created by Republicans. Though, if you ask them, they have forgotten all of that.
But their goal is not to actually reduce spending. Or to help the economy. It is to kill the social safety net and, most importantly, to defeat Obama. Even if that means harming the economy for all of us.
Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode. Seinfeld Scripts - The Wig Master:
Idiots.
And let's not forget that a good bulk of the economic problems we have were created by Republicans. Though, if you ask them, they have forgotten all of that.
But their goal is not to actually reduce spending. Or to help the economy. It is to kill the social safety net and, most importantly, to defeat Obama. Even if that means harming the economy for all of us.
Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode. Seinfeld Scripts - The Wig Master:
"Scene cuts to the Andover shop.
Jerry: 'Excuse me I'd like to return this jacket.'
Teller: 'Certainly. May I ask why?'
Jerry: '........For spite...'
Teller: 'Spite?'
Jerry: 'That's right. I don't care for the salesman that sold it to me.'
Teller: 'I don't think you can return an item for spite.'"
Bachmann Nation: Where facts don't matter
The Washington post has a poll that shows that a majority of Republicans and Tea Partiers think that the debt ceiling doesn't need to be raised and nothing bad will happen if it is not.
Which reminds me of why the Republican part has become so unbelievable. They simply reject inconvenient facts. So a vast majority of evolutionary biologists knows that evolution is fact, not some vague idea? You find the one scientists who has questions and he or she becomes your standard bearers. Vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is human caused? You just find that one guy (I was sent a link one time that proved climate change wasn't real--it was from an astrologer) and you just say, "there are many theories out there. The science isn't in."
Except it is. But when you are a Bachmann Republican, you just "conclusion shop" until you can find a historian who has Paul Revere ringing bells, or an economist who thinks that the default is no big deal. It doesn't matter if the guy is an idiot, because his knowledge doesn't matter either. What only matters is what you want to believe. There is a part of me that is a little jealous of that. I wish I could just deny my fears about climate change or economic collapse.
But I live in a real world where species adapt, and carbon increases the temperature, and when one of the biggest economies in the world refuses (out of spite) to pay its bills, there are going to be consequences.
In other words, I think, therefore I am no longer even eligible for the Republican party.
Which reminds me of why the Republican part has become so unbelievable. They simply reject inconvenient facts. So a vast majority of evolutionary biologists knows that evolution is fact, not some vague idea? You find the one scientists who has questions and he or she becomes your standard bearers. Vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is human caused? You just find that one guy (I was sent a link one time that proved climate change wasn't real--it was from an astrologer) and you just say, "there are many theories out there. The science isn't in."
Except it is. But when you are a Bachmann Republican, you just "conclusion shop" until you can find a historian who has Paul Revere ringing bells, or an economist who thinks that the default is no big deal. It doesn't matter if the guy is an idiot, because his knowledge doesn't matter either. What only matters is what you want to believe. There is a part of me that is a little jealous of that. I wish I could just deny my fears about climate change or economic collapse.
But I live in a real world where species adapt, and carbon increases the temperature, and when one of the biggest economies in the world refuses (out of spite) to pay its bills, there are going to be consequences.
In other words, I think, therefore I am no longer even eligible for the Republican party.
Um, GOP? You do realize that is a cliff you are driving us over, right?
Every Major Credit Agency Prepares to Downgrade U.S.
Oh, that's right. You are all fucking idiots. Club for Growth tells Republicans: Trigger a Default or Else.
Oh, that's right. You are all fucking idiots. Club for Growth tells Republicans: Trigger a Default or Else.
Why Americans Think All Politicians Fail Them
David Frum has an excerpt of his recent column on why Americans think all politicians fail them, but I think he overlooks--at least from the part that I can read--the role that his own party has played in this. After several decades now of demonizing government, why would he think that the public would somehow trust their representatives in that government?
In fact, there seems to be this scenario going on--since Watergate. Republicans tell the public that government and politicians are evil and can't be trusted. Republicans then win elections on that claim, then take steps to prove that government is destructive and harmful to the public. Then blames Democrats for their own failings.
Rinse and repeat.
In fact, there seems to be this scenario going on--since Watergate. Republicans tell the public that government and politicians are evil and can't be trusted. Republicans then win elections on that claim, then take steps to prove that government is destructive and harmful to the public. Then blames Democrats for their own failings.
Rinse and repeat.
July 17, 2011
Breaking Up with God: A Love Story
I mentioned this book before, but finally finished it yesterday. Not because it is a difficult read--quite the opposite--but I just was distracted with a few other things. So yesterday afternoon, I found myself crying a few times as I followed her journey. Greg's review is really good, and he explains this book better than I can.
This book won't be for everyone. I think that is fairly obvious. But her questions about God sounded like those in my own head. And her frustration with the church's simplification echoed my own. My own experience was like this:
In summary, God is so much bigger than we can even imagine, but he prefers America, hates anyone who criticizes Israel, hates gay marriage, and likes capitalism and private property. But we can't really know him. If something good happens that we prayed for--that is proof that God answers prayer. If something bad happens that we prayed for--that is proof that we can't understand God's purpose and will. Even though we understood it when we liked the outcome.
God becomes, in that sense, everything and nothing. He is in complete control, but sometimes things happen that he clearly could not have wanted to happen, but he allowed that to happen because of some other reason. We are to have a close personal relationship with him--closer than that with our closest human connections, but can't really know him. And he might still smite us--as he has that opportunity and his "ways are higher than our ways."
She recounts a similar response to the torture revelations from Iraq. I think it is hard to completely explain how difficult that moment was for me. Well, not that moment as I am well aware of the evil that men do. But when the conservative church endorsed, or at best, shrugged off the evil of torture, something died for me. Their God didn't mind that because, as Bristol Pail said the other day, "God is on our side." He prefers us to those Muslims. I expected those who talked about how big God was, and who recounted the stories of Jesus as shepherd, finding that one lost sheep--I expected them to weep when they discovered that Bush was torturing in our name.
But they didn't. They didn't even come close. And their God didn't say anything to them. Still hasn't.
This book won't be for everyone. I think that is fairly obvious. But her questions about God sounded like those in my own head. And her frustration with the church's simplification echoed my own. My own experience was like this:
Evangelical: God is so much bigger than you can even imagine.
Me: So he might actually be she?
Evangelical: Don't be silly. He is just like a father.
Me: So there is no way he would wipe out populations of people, right?
Evangelical: No, he can do that and be just like your father too.
In summary, God is so much bigger than we can even imagine, but he prefers America, hates anyone who criticizes Israel, hates gay marriage, and likes capitalism and private property. But we can't really know him. If something good happens that we prayed for--that is proof that God answers prayer. If something bad happens that we prayed for--that is proof that we can't understand God's purpose and will. Even though we understood it when we liked the outcome.
God becomes, in that sense, everything and nothing. He is in complete control, but sometimes things happen that he clearly could not have wanted to happen, but he allowed that to happen because of some other reason. We are to have a close personal relationship with him--closer than that with our closest human connections, but can't really know him. And he might still smite us--as he has that opportunity and his "ways are higher than our ways."
She recounts a similar response to the torture revelations from Iraq. I think it is hard to completely explain how difficult that moment was for me. Well, not that moment as I am well aware of the evil that men do. But when the conservative church endorsed, or at best, shrugged off the evil of torture, something died for me. Their God didn't mind that because, as Bristol Pail said the other day, "God is on our side." He prefers us to those Muslims. I expected those who talked about how big God was, and who recounted the stories of Jesus as shepherd, finding that one lost sheep--I expected them to weep when they discovered that Bush was torturing in our name.
But they didn't. They didn't even come close. And their God didn't say anything to them. Still hasn't.
July 15, 2011
Fundamentalism means never having to compromise
After all, when you know the ultimate truth, compromising with lesser beings is pretty silly. I get that. But of course, these people don't actually have the ultimate truth, and their methods have been clearly ineffective. Of course, I am talking about Republicans on taxes.
Jesus. I get it. As Tracy Jordan once said on 30 Rock, "I get it, Jack, Republicans want less taxes, more guns, and the end of the gun tax." And I get how tax cuts can be effective in certain situations. The idea of "supply side" economics is to encourage the "supply" of goods--with the theory being that if you have a supply problem, incenting or encouraging production and investment will then benefit from demand. But the problem with Republicans is that they have decided that every economic situation could benefit from more supply. But in this recession, supply has never been the problem. Inventory has stacked up because people lack the ability to consume. That is the demand side, not the supply side, and merits a different approach.
But for modern Republicans, there is no economic problem that cannot be solved by a tax cut. Even when it won't work. And that has led to this kind of unbelievable zeal that puts, as Meyerson notes, tax cuts over even helping the disabled or the poor. Ever.
Here is the funny thing. Every Republican I have talked to in person claims that they are not opposed to raising some taxes. Yet their leadership drives us off a cliff. Somehow I don't think the elected Republicans fear their base leaving them. So I am not sure I trust my Republican friends that much.
Jesus. I get it. As Tracy Jordan once said on 30 Rock, "I get it, Jack, Republicans want less taxes, more guns, and the end of the gun tax." And I get how tax cuts can be effective in certain situations. The idea of "supply side" economics is to encourage the "supply" of goods--with the theory being that if you have a supply problem, incenting or encouraging production and investment will then benefit from demand. But the problem with Republicans is that they have decided that every economic situation could benefit from more supply. But in this recession, supply has never been the problem. Inventory has stacked up because people lack the ability to consume. That is the demand side, not the supply side, and merits a different approach.
But for modern Republicans, there is no economic problem that cannot be solved by a tax cut. Even when it won't work. And that has led to this kind of unbelievable zeal that puts, as Meyerson notes, tax cuts over even helping the disabled or the poor. Ever.
In Minnesota, a state with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature, Gov. Mark Dayton sought to raise taxes on only the relative handful of Minnesotans with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. The legislature opposed that, insisting on cuts (including to services for those with disabilities) that Dayton wouldn’t countenance.Or in California where Jerry Brown offered to deregulate some areas and even cut state pensions if Republicans would allow the people to decide on tax increases. But Republicans have decided no tax cuts, ever.
Here is the funny thing. Every Republican I have talked to in person claims that they are not opposed to raising some taxes. Yet their leadership drives us off a cliff. Somehow I don't think the elected Republicans fear their base leaving them. So I am not sure I trust my Republican friends that much.
July 13, 2011
The Christian right and White Supremacy
Sarah Posner has a piece on the connections between the far right and the White Supremacy and neo confederate movement. It is worth a read.
But to be very clear, and I am sure Ms. Posner would agree, this is not to suggest that conservative Christians are racist. But it does suggest that there are connections that many of them don't even realize. In fact, I am becoming more and more convinced that the conservative Christians are largely ill-informed about what their politicians are doing in their name. I don't think they realize much of the insanity, and this is just another example. It doesn't excuse their ignorance, but it may explain why they have become supporters for a party that is increasingly racist and certainly only interested in the interests of the rich and powerful.
But to be very clear, and I am sure Ms. Posner would agree, this is not to suggest that conservative Christians are racist. But it does suggest that there are connections that many of them don't even realize. In fact, I am becoming more and more convinced that the conservative Christians are largely ill-informed about what their politicians are doing in their name. I don't think they realize much of the insanity, and this is just another example. It doesn't excuse their ignorance, but it may explain why they have become supporters for a party that is increasingly racist and certainly only interested in the interests of the rich and powerful.
July 11, 2011
Goddamn Republican idiots
Seriously. Maybe it is the heat getting to me, but I am finally realizing that Republicans are going to sink our economy to prove that they are fiscally responsible. They are goddamned fucking idiots. And that is the nicest thing I can say about them right now.
Let's start with this nice little chart. Look at the down arrows since Bush took office, and look at how big those down arrows are. And notice how many of these fuckers voted consistently for every goddamned one of those tax cuts during two wars.
Now read what the conservative Economist has to say about this crisis.
Now read what the intellectually dishonest and seemingly endlessly stupid Republicans have to say about the negotiations. Meanwhile, Obama has actually floated over 3 trillion dollars in cuts, in exchange for minor increases in revenue that only close loopholes, they don't even raise marginal rates. And Obama, damn it, is actually floating raising the retirement age for Medicare--Jesus Fucking Christ--while Republicans refuse to even close one goddamned loophole.
These people are nuts. There is nothing worse than ignorant people who believe that compromise is evil, and Republicans have given us a whole fucking caucus of them. I hope you all enjoy their "fiscal responsibility" when our economy slides back into recession.
What fucking morons.
Let's start with this nice little chart. Look at the down arrows since Bush took office, and look at how big those down arrows are. And notice how many of these fuckers voted consistently for every goddamned one of those tax cuts during two wars.
Now read what the conservative Economist has to say about this crisis.
The sticking-point is not on the spending side. It is because the vast majority of Republicans, driven on by the wilder-eyed members of their party and the cacophony of conservative media, are clinging to the position that not a single cent of deficit reduction must come from a higher tax take. This is economically illiterate and disgracefully cynical.
Now read what the intellectually dishonest and seemingly endlessly stupid Republicans have to say about the negotiations. Meanwhile, Obama has actually floated over 3 trillion dollars in cuts, in exchange for minor increases in revenue that only close loopholes, they don't even raise marginal rates. And Obama, damn it, is actually floating raising the retirement age for Medicare--Jesus Fucking Christ--while Republicans refuse to even close one goddamned loophole.
These people are nuts. There is nothing worse than ignorant people who believe that compromise is evil, and Republicans have given us a whole fucking caucus of them. I hope you all enjoy their "fiscal responsibility" when our economy slides back into recession.
What fucking morons.
July 10, 2011
The nature of God
How is that for a grandiose blog title? Yeah, I thought so too.
But I am reading this book, thanks to Greg's review. It is a great book, and has already spurred some thoughtful conversations about the nature of God. For me, one of the best examples was the discussion about Aaron and the Golden Calf--including the part where Moses has some 3,000 people killed according to God's order. As I noted to a friend, I find that God hard to understand in the context of the "personal relationship" God that I am supposed to see as Father. Yeah, except my own father never claimed that he could kill me and be right to do so.
But that is the nature of evangelical language right now, and I think that needs to be rethought. Greg once again highlights an example from this last week's tragic case of a baseball fan dying trying to catch a foul ball. Just an awful story, and as it turns out, the player who threw him the ball--Josh Hamilton--responded to it with this empty, but all too common response:
But I am reading this book, thanks to Greg's review. It is a great book, and has already spurred some thoughtful conversations about the nature of God. For me, one of the best examples was the discussion about Aaron and the Golden Calf--including the part where Moses has some 3,000 people killed according to God's order. As I noted to a friend, I find that God hard to understand in the context of the "personal relationship" God that I am supposed to see as Father. Yeah, except my own father never claimed that he could kill me and be right to do so.
But that is the nature of evangelical language right now, and I think that needs to be rethought. Greg once again highlights an example from this last week's tragic case of a baseball fan dying trying to catch a foul ball. Just an awful story, and as it turns out, the player who threw him the ball--Josh Hamilton--responded to it with this empty, but all too common response:
I can't imagine what they're going through right now. I can't imagine. All I can think about is praying for them and knowing that God has a plan. You don't always know what that plan is when those things happen, but you will.As Greg notes, this is the kind of response that means absolutely nothing. The same thing could be said if a person has a personal victory, or when the Japanese nuclear plant leaked. It has no meaning, or has very bad meaning. And, as Greg notes, there is a better response:
"This is a tragedy, and I can't explain it, but I believe God will ultimately bring something good out of all this."Instead, we get the vapid and meaningless response that so many evangelicals use without even thinking.
USA Women win one of the most amazing contests I have ever seen
Wambach, Solo key dramatic US win over Brazil - World Soccer - Yahoo! Sports
What a damn game. It had everything. Bad luck, bad refs, some nice plays, and then one phenomenal cross in extra time when the game was just about done--followed by a header into the back of the net. Then another great save in penalty kicks to push the Americans past the Brazilians.
The bad ref just about ruined it all, and highlights how a bad ref can really screw up this game. Of course, they can fuck up any sport, but the premium on scoring in soccer really makes it a bigger impact--at least to me.
But what a game.
What a damn game. It had everything. Bad luck, bad refs, some nice plays, and then one phenomenal cross in extra time when the game was just about done--followed by a header into the back of the net. Then another great save in penalty kicks to push the Americans past the Brazilians.
The bad ref just about ruined it all, and highlights how a bad ref can really screw up this game. Of course, they can fuck up any sport, but the premium on scoring in soccer really makes it a bigger impact--at least to me.
But what a game.
July 8, 2011
More on the debt crisis
Meant to post this very good NPR story on what the default would do to our economy. Still amazes me that supposedly fiscally "responsible" people would threaten to not pay our obligations. Shame on them.
And here is a great look at how different the two sides see the poor and rich. Orrin Hatch thinks that the poor aren't doing enough on the debt crisis because many of them are too poor to pay federal income taxes. Never mind that income inequality continues to grow, and those poor are losing ground, not gaining, and never fucking mind that they pay a lot of other kinds of taxes at a regressive level. Never mind. Just protect the rich.
Steve asked about Social Security cuts. Here is what I found. My problem with any of this is that while many people will be able to manage this without a significant hardship, there are those who will be barely scraping by who will hurt. That is the option v. asking the people who's income has increased nearly exponentially over the last 30 years. Nothing fair or just or moral about that.
And here is a great look at how different the two sides see the poor and rich. Orrin Hatch thinks that the poor aren't doing enough on the debt crisis because many of them are too poor to pay federal income taxes. Never mind that income inequality continues to grow, and those poor are losing ground, not gaining, and never fucking mind that they pay a lot of other kinds of taxes at a regressive level. Never mind. Just protect the rich.
Steve asked about Social Security cuts. Here is what I found. My problem with any of this is that while many people will be able to manage this without a significant hardship, there are those who will be barely scraping by who will hurt. That is the option v. asking the people who's income has increased nearly exponentially over the last 30 years. Nothing fair or just or moral about that.
July 7, 2011
More on the GOP's war on the poor
Saw this tweet from columnist Charles Blow:
Those people will miss meals, suffer more hardship, and in some cases will die sooner than they would have.
On the other hand, the rich are being asked to dip into their rising wealth. Inequality is growing at leaps and bounds, but we will continue to ask the poor to contribute to the deficit and bow to the wealthy.
And clearly, for conservative Christians, social justice is simply not important.
CharlesMBlow: ...Pain for Dem constituents (the poor) will be real. There are many of them. Pain for Repubs will be on principle. How many ppl own jets?And it is worth walking out. The cuts that Republicans have already enacted and are pushing for will result in actual and real deprivation. Elderly people who can't quite have their prescription and their food. Or middle class people struggling to pay for nursing home care--or that family with the disabled child.
Those people will miss meals, suffer more hardship, and in some cases will die sooner than they would have.
On the other hand, the rich are being asked to dip into their rising wealth. Inequality is growing at leaps and bounds, but we will continue to ask the poor to contribute to the deficit and bow to the wealthy.
And clearly, for conservative Christians, social justice is simply not important.
GOP and the wealthy win
Two stories from this morning that completely ruined my coffee. The first Chris Hayes called "terrifying" is this story about Obama floating deep Social Security cuts to assuage the fucking ransoming GOP. Yeah, let's take the best social safety net of the last 100 years and offer it up as a chip to hijackers for what? Yeah, for what? For nominal talks about closing loopholes--oh, and the GOP says that any loophole closed has to be paid for. No new revenue. Fuckers.
But when asked about the idea of shared sacrifice, the GOP is clear about who they serve. Leave 'Em Alone! Republicans Explain How The Rich Can Contribute To Debt Reduction | TPMDC.
A shorter version? The rich make jobs, and they already pay taxes, so leave them alone. Beg them to stay and make jobs. That is their sacrifice. Never mind that they continue to get richer and richer and leave people behind. And never mind that all of this is intended on further distancing the rich from any obligation to the poor and middle class.
A bad day, and a bad day for Obama. He is selling us out.
But when asked about the idea of shared sacrifice, the GOP is clear about who they serve. Leave 'Em Alone! Republicans Explain How The Rich Can Contribute To Debt Reduction | TPMDC.
A shorter version? The rich make jobs, and they already pay taxes, so leave them alone. Beg them to stay and make jobs. That is their sacrifice. Never mind that they continue to get richer and richer and leave people behind. And never mind that all of this is intended on further distancing the rich from any obligation to the poor and middle class.
A bad day, and a bad day for Obama. He is selling us out.
July 6, 2011
So Casey Anthony was found not guilty?
And here is the deal. I had not heard of the trial until yesterday's verdict. I saw buzz on Facebook and had to google the name. I guess that proves that I don't watch cable news and that the news I read online doesn't cover this kind of story.
But now I am caught up, and my reaction is that our country is seriously messed up. This is the story that captivates the entire nation, while Republicans threatening to crater our economy is simply ignored. I am certainly not saying that the death of this little girl is trivial, because it certainly is not. It is a deeply tragic story. But watching the news last night, I saw a level of obsession with the story, the characters, and the outcome that seemed to belie the context.
So I have multiple objections. The first is the same I felt after the OJ trial when people start slamming the jury. Nancy Grace doesn't get to execute people she thinks are guilty, and the system is set so that it is difficult to convict people. But further, I am always amused (if amusement is the right word--and I don't think it is) when people are so dismissive of a jury verdict like this, but somehow convinced that all the people we execute are dead-bang guilty. If the system is so flawed to let this woman wrongly slide, why are they not skeptical about the people sent to the chair?
And the other is, as always, a sense that the media focuses on the easy, and ignores the difficult. I understand the grief over this little girl, but, as I noted, there are key political issues that go unnoticed. Republicans killing the economy is one, but another and equally vexing one is the budget cuts that will endanger thousands of young girls like Caylee Anthony. How do people express grief over one lost girl, but have no difficulty voting to cut off funding for thousands of kids, some of whom have disabilities or are in foster care?
But the media prefers these stories because they have natural drama, and require almost no intelligence to sell. And the public prefers a story that is simple to those that are tough to understand.
And we are all lessened.
But now I am caught up, and my reaction is that our country is seriously messed up. This is the story that captivates the entire nation, while Republicans threatening to crater our economy is simply ignored. I am certainly not saying that the death of this little girl is trivial, because it certainly is not. It is a deeply tragic story. But watching the news last night, I saw a level of obsession with the story, the characters, and the outcome that seemed to belie the context.
So I have multiple objections. The first is the same I felt after the OJ trial when people start slamming the jury. Nancy Grace doesn't get to execute people she thinks are guilty, and the system is set so that it is difficult to convict people. But further, I am always amused (if amusement is the right word--and I don't think it is) when people are so dismissive of a jury verdict like this, but somehow convinced that all the people we execute are dead-bang guilty. If the system is so flawed to let this woman wrongly slide, why are they not skeptical about the people sent to the chair?
And the other is, as always, a sense that the media focuses on the easy, and ignores the difficult. I understand the grief over this little girl, but, as I noted, there are key political issues that go unnoticed. Republicans killing the economy is one, but another and equally vexing one is the budget cuts that will endanger thousands of young girls like Caylee Anthony. How do people express grief over one lost girl, but have no difficulty voting to cut off funding for thousands of kids, some of whom have disabilities or are in foster care?
But the media prefers these stories because they have natural drama, and require almost no intelligence to sell. And the public prefers a story that is simple to those that are tough to understand.
And we are all lessened.
July 5, 2011
Even David Brooks thinks the GOP is crazy
And this is close to the best, concise explanation I have read:
"The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.
The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.
But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol."
July 4, 2011
Ok, this made my day--Should we teach Math in schools?
A wonderful parody of the questions posed to Miss USA contestants about teaching evolution in schools. For all the people who use the word "believe" in conjunction with "evolution."
July 3, 2011
The 4th of July
This has never been my favorite holiday. Maybe it was my dislike of large group picnics. I don't know. I know I have enjoyed some individual 4ths, but not all of them. Maybe it is because the dogs never enjoy the noise.
I remember the first summer we had Streak. Anglican's apartment had a great view of the fireworks, so we all went down there to watch, and I brought this little dog who had adopted us. He was so scared. He spent the entire fireworks with his head under my arm. Damn I miss him. I am watching my thumbnail grow out with a little sadness. He bit me during a treatment and the mark is just about gone. That has been a pretty steady reminder, though I know I don't need that to remember him. But it is still sad.
We have tried to rehabilitate this weekend, mostly by trying to spend it with friends. Last night we had a couple over and tonight we head to more friends. That will be good.
I think I have always struggled with the patriotism part. I get loving your country. I just am not sure what to think about people loving it in such an angry and hateful way. I read this week about a congressman from Georgia who said that he would do anything "short of shooting them" when he saw illegal immigrants. I suspect he sees himself as an uber patriot. As do most conservatives.
Yet, it makes me feel a little ill. And the conservative war on people continues. Minnesota has shut down state offices (non essential) primarily because Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone. That makes no sense to me, but those Republicans will tell me that they believe in freedom and that they are patriots.
And I read that across the country, not only are women seeing abortion outlawed, but states are starting to criminalize any kind of miscarriage. I get the opposition to abortion, but this is going a step beyond. And what amazes me about this kind of law, is that I am pretty sure that the upper middle class white wife will not have her miscarriage questioned. I am pretty confident of that. If that is small-government, then I have to just throw up my hands. That is fascism. That is what a totalitarian state does--not one that preaches freedom.
I do love this country. I refuse to wave a flag and won't put one up on the house. But I have deep respect for our country's history and actual freedoms. I still consider our constitution a brilliant document. I believe our system is amazing, and one way it has proven that is how much expansion and access we have added since the original document. I believe in what Herbert Croly called "the promise of American life." But I don't see it in conservative thought today. All I see is hate and bigotry and stupidity.
We can do better. On this 4th, I will remember my friend Streak, and I will think of all my friends and family around the country and here in town. I will think of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting for us, and for those others who have stood up for the least of these here at home.
I remember the first summer we had Streak. Anglican's apartment had a great view of the fireworks, so we all went down there to watch, and I brought this little dog who had adopted us. He was so scared. He spent the entire fireworks with his head under my arm. Damn I miss him. I am watching my thumbnail grow out with a little sadness. He bit me during a treatment and the mark is just about gone. That has been a pretty steady reminder, though I know I don't need that to remember him. But it is still sad.
We have tried to rehabilitate this weekend, mostly by trying to spend it with friends. Last night we had a couple over and tonight we head to more friends. That will be good.
I think I have always struggled with the patriotism part. I get loving your country. I just am not sure what to think about people loving it in such an angry and hateful way. I read this week about a congressman from Georgia who said that he would do anything "short of shooting them" when he saw illegal immigrants. I suspect he sees himself as an uber patriot. As do most conservatives.
Yet, it makes me feel a little ill. And the conservative war on people continues. Minnesota has shut down state offices (non essential) primarily because Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone. That makes no sense to me, but those Republicans will tell me that they believe in freedom and that they are patriots.
And I read that across the country, not only are women seeing abortion outlawed, but states are starting to criminalize any kind of miscarriage. I get the opposition to abortion, but this is going a step beyond. And what amazes me about this kind of law, is that I am pretty sure that the upper middle class white wife will not have her miscarriage questioned. I am pretty confident of that. If that is small-government, then I have to just throw up my hands. That is fascism. That is what a totalitarian state does--not one that preaches freedom.
I do love this country. I refuse to wave a flag and won't put one up on the house. But I have deep respect for our country's history and actual freedoms. I still consider our constitution a brilliant document. I believe our system is amazing, and one way it has proven that is how much expansion and access we have added since the original document. I believe in what Herbert Croly called "the promise of American life." But I don't see it in conservative thought today. All I see is hate and bigotry and stupidity.
We can do better. On this 4th, I will remember my friend Streak, and I will think of all my friends and family around the country and here in town. I will think of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting for us, and for those others who have stood up for the least of these here at home.
July 1, 2011
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:
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?
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?
June 30, 2011
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
Christianism Watch - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast
June 29, 2011
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.'"
June 28, 2011
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:
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?
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?
June 27, 2011
June 24, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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.
June 21, 2011
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
Growing Chorus Of Republicans Demand Social Security Cuts In Deficit Deal | TPMDC
June 17, 2011
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.
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.
June 14, 2011
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.
June 13, 2011
June 12, 2011
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.
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?
------
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?
June 10, 2011
Inequality
Everything I read tells me that our nation's inequality is growing. Saw this on twitter tonight:
What puzzles me is why this is not a concern for so many conservatives? Do they simply not believe it to be true?
According to Barron's, real family incomes have fallen 2% since 2000 while corporate profits have increased 70% over the same span #fbI 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.
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.
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.
June 8, 2011
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.
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.
June 6, 2011
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.
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.
June 3, 2011
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.
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.
June 2, 2011
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
June 1, 2011
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
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.
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.
May 31, 2011
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.
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.
May 27, 2011
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.
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.
May 26, 2011
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.
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.
"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.
May 24, 2011
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.
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.
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:
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?
"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.
May 22, 2011
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. :)
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.
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.
May 20, 2011
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.
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.
May 19, 2011
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.
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.
May 18, 2011
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.
I am starting to really think that Paul Ryan is the dumbest of a dumb lot.
May 17, 2011
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.
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.
May 15, 2011
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.
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.
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.
May 14, 2011
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. :)
May 12, 2011
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.":
And speaking of the right and crazy, my friend Rusty noted this (also from MOJo) about the Tea Party's view of the Constitution.
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.
May 5, 2011
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?"
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.
"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.
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.
May 4, 2011
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.
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.
May 3, 2011
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?
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?
May 2, 2011
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.
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)