Stupid people saying stupid stuff and enacting stupid and racist laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As usual, Jon does it better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

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

Christian Nation: Love it or Leave it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Religious liberty--what a radical idea

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

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

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

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

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

Open letter to Franklin Graham

Dear Mr. Graham,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,



Streak

Legal or not, abortion rates similar

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

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

Christians and fake oppression--birth control edition

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

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

Oh, Evangelical Mind? Where the hell are you?

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

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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

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

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

Abortion wars, continued

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

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

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

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

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

Kathleen Edwards

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

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



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

Ugh, abortion wars

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama and race--the Jan Brewer edition

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

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

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

What Obama means for race

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

Awesome.    

Obama X

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Twitter feed

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

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

Moral authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First World Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My twitter name "Streak"

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

Santorum reiterates two GOP talking points

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

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

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

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

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

Small government at work?

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

The appeal of libertarianism?

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

Government spending in our lives

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

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

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

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

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

Republicans on the mandate

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

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

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

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

Because they are more conservative than Christian

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

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

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

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

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

Ron Paul's newsletters

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

Indefensible. Racist. Hateful.

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

I sure wish that was funny.

The poor 1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streak and Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Austerity to address depression economics?

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

GOP's anti-government rhetoric has consequences

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

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

If conservative Christians rally around Gingrich

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on OWS and the response

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

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

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

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

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

Something awfully wrong with this picture

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

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

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

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

Hmm. God must like torture

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

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

The sickness at Penn State

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Brooks knows nothing about beer

And man is he wrong. Could not be more wrong. In a clever, but I think superficial column on inequality in America, he notes which kinds of inequality are acceptable and which ones are not. But on beer he says this:

Beer inequality is on the way down. There used to be a high status difference between microbrews and regular old Budweiser. In academic jargon, beer had a high Gini Coefficient. But as microbrews went mainstream, these status differences diminished.

Just goes to prove that David Brooks knows nothing about beer or beer snobs.

Update--and thoughts

I met with my therapist yesterday.  I have seen him before and found him to be as I remembered--thoughtful, engaged, and intelligent.  He suggested that my malaise was based in the fact that I felt that my intellectual and professional contributions were not valued, and probably that I was grieving the fact that some of my professional dreams not only hadn't happened, but probably would not.

He gave me some suggestions for ways to both think about my work now, and to also find other ways to "fill my bucket" outside work.  Probably something a lot of people struggle with.

---------------

I have been struck, btw, by how my conservative Christian friends on FB are more likely to dismiss the OWS movement as a bunch of whiners.  One had a comment (by someone I didn't know) who suggested that the entire movement was caused by ACORN.  Wow.

How did conservative Christianity become the defensive bulwark for the wealthy?

-------------

Watched the coverage of the Penn State story last night.  There is absolutely nothing good about this story of abuse and pedophilia and institutional failure.  But it amazed me to hear the students chanting for Paterno to be able to coach the remainder of the season.  As if football matters in this context?

But to be fair, and Chris Fowler made this very point (which makes me wonder if he won't get in trouble), Penn State did this as a PR move to stop the bleeding and change the narrative.  They did it to protect the brand and to protect the institution's financial situation.

Once we turned universities from institutions of education into commercial ventures, we created this kind of idiocy.  

Christian values

Old news to regular readers, but it never ceases to amaze me when right wingers talk about faith while cheering on behaviors that are clearly antithetical to their professed beliefs. I haven't respected this man for a long time, so it came as no surprise to see him spouting a lot of bullshit about what will happen if Americans stop remembering the lessons from "scripture." (God Will Stop Blessing America If We Don't Vote Right In 2012 | Right Wing Watch).

Sigh.

I remember writing this post back in 2006 when James Dobson interviewed Ann Coulter and made fun of both liberals and the idea of torture. I even called the show to express my horror.

Sigh.

I know that Leighton usually reminds me that this should be expected in this tribal version of Christianity. It still just makes me incredibly sad, because I grew up in a context where Dobson was considered a wise man. To hear him talk about Obama, and liberals and torture that way--even after all I know about him--is jarring. To know that people listen to him still just makes me sadder.

Does God approve of bullying gays?

My disgust for religious conservatives grows. I used to respect them for their moral clarity, even as I disagreed with them on certain points. I disagreed with their opposition to gay rights, but understood those to be in some kind of keeping with their reading of the Bible. I disagreed with their opposition to abortion rights, but absolutely understood their concern for the unborn.

That was before religious conservatives openly defended torture, and now defend attacks on the poor and the disabled. That was before conservative Christians pushed for laws making poor women fear that a miscarriage could result in their arrest. And that was well before this gem from Michigan, where a law outlawing school bullying actually includes a loophole for "sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."

Yeah, read that again. In the world of religious conservatives, gays should be bullied, because they shouldn't be gay, period. Those kids who commit suicide do so because they are gay, not because self-righteous right wingers demonize them in public, and call for their public shame.

There is no world where this makes sense, and there is absolutely no world where people who supposedly worship Jesus can support this. None. This is not a gray area. This is the sanctioning of psychologically hectoring and demonizing people who struggle deeply with their identity, self-worth, and sexual understanding already. And people with Bibles in their homes, and drawers, and on Ipads and phones want them not to be helped, but harmed.

Perhaps I should not be surprised. My FB friend from last week believes in a God who doesn't mind innocents dying or torture when they are the "others." How the fuck to you read the NT and believe in that God? Seriously? All I can picture is that shepherd leaving the 99 to go find that one lost sheep, and these people think that same God smokes in the corner while people are waterboarded, or cheers from the back as some gay kid is called names on the schoolyard. Or nods grimly when that kid's death is blamed not on the bullies, or the lack of support from the community, but on the kid himself.

I know that isn't Christianity, but far too many conservatives have lost their freaking minds. Far too many people who should know better allow the logic of the bully to win over the concern for the Samaritan by the road side.

Christianity has been hijacked by people who hate the poor, love the rich, embrace violence and torture, and make fun of peace and actual compassion. And that is just horribly sad.

My rant and the continuing conversation about torture

I have been pondering the responses to my fall funk, and have received several through email and phone. I appreciate that very much. I hope that those inside the "cult" understand that my post was not a criticism of them, but also understand that if I were one of those invited in, I would probably defend it. I am not sure how else I would respond. Leighton's comment about it being ok to not make it in my profession is a good one. I think the difficult thing is that all of the people close to me who have made it are very qualified, and probably smarter than me, the difficulty is that I have known people who made it despite being less than impressive. Perhaps we file that under the "life isn't fair" category, but it is a reality. Like I said, CIL, and Ubub have both made it into the inner circle, and their intelligence and work ethic is beyond reproach. But there have been others who make not making it all that much more difficult. On that note, btw, I have an appointment for next week with my therapist, and will see how that goes. Perhaps I can gain some clarity on this funk. On the other note, however, let me say that I have had a recent exchange with a FB friend about torture and evangelical ethics that made me blanche. This is a guy who served as somewhat of a mentor to me during my late high school and early college years. I framed the torture question to him, and he said this:

As far as torture and killing there will always be innocents that become victims. If you look at the old testament accounts of God's people going into battle for the sake of His future kingdom, and at His command there were thousands killed then. I'm not saying Bush was God and should have done those things but the precept being that the future in both cases justifies the means. So maybe that doesn't ring true with other conservatives but that's me.

Again, Leighton's comment about religious justification comes to mind, but this one was more chilling than any of the others. Most of the evangelicals I have talked to about torture have hemmed and hawed about it, but ultimately agree that it is evil. The only one who has just denounced it as evil and wrong was Tony. Every other conservative evangelical has tried to find some way to explain it. This guy, however, just said openly that it was ultimately tolerable because we are on God's side. That depresses me deeply. As I noted back to him, if that is how evangelicals respond to torture, then there really is no such thing as a Christian ethic. After all, we are all pretty good at treating our friends relatively well. This is not an attack on Christianity (though my FB friend assumed as much--which says a lot about assumptions of Christianity equalling conservatism, and any criticism of conservative policy was ergo an attack on Christianity). I cling to my faith, though not easily. But it is an attack on the assumption that Christians can somehow magically understand moral issues absent some broader dialogue. I have no idea what God says to people, but it obviously not very clear to most conservative evangelicals that their "conservative" approach is not the same as their supposed "Christian" one. After all, if those conservatives can't figure out that torture is evil, I have little faith that they can make sense of less obvious moral questions. And that makes me sad.

Fall rant

No, my funk has not improved. And yes, I have called a therapist. Now I just have to wait for him to call me back.

But this for the morning rant--saw that the US House spent all yesterday debating and passing a resolution affirming the national motto (since 1956) "In God We Trust."

I would be as impressed with this as my conservative evangelical friends except that these same people love torture and did nothing to stop it. They love rich people and have done everything they can to make sure that the rich are never asked to sacrifice anything. They love guns, and at the state level are reducing regulations left and right to make sure that we have more guns in public.

And these same fuckers are cutting aid for the disabled poor! What in the holy hell is going on here? What possible fucking world makes sense where people of faith cut funding for people who need assistance to live in their own homes? Or to get to jobs? Or to simply make it through the day. What distorted vision of Jesus Christ makes that possible?

My faith hangs by a thread. I struggle each and every day to believe that God is somehow in the heavens watching this mess. And the people who should "Jesus" at every opportunity make life harder for the disabled, the poor, children and the elderly--and yet have the balls to make a public pronouncement about "In God We Trust."

Perhaps it should read: "You people have to trust in God, because we will do absolutely nothing to help you."

Fall funk

Or at least that is what I am calling this. I love this time of year, but it is always hard on me. The shorter days and the cooler weather are, perhaps, a bad mix for a brooding personality.

I have also been having a recurring dream that is getting on my nerves. I really believe myself to be incredibly fortunate. I have good health, a good marriage and friends and family who love me. SOF and I live a relatively simple life and are able to afford the things we really enjoy.

But my recurring dream is always about not making it as an academic. Yes, I teach college every semester, and I mold young minds (hah), but I do so as one of the migrant workers of higher ed. As an adjunct, I teach contract by contract, semester by semester. I am scheduled for next semester, but nothing has been signed, for example. Higher ed isn't what we imagine. It is more about revenue than teaching, and that makes it hard on those who teach. And even harder on those who teach as adjuncts.

Part of the difficulty is relating to tenured faculty. My friend M refers to academia as a cult, and notes that when those in the cult look at those outside the cult with a puzzled face--why are you not inside with us? Can't tell you how many times I have experienced that. People who landed a job right out of grad school look at people like me, and probably think there is something wrong with me. I can't be that good or else I would have landed as they did. I also have more than one friend inside who is painfully aware of the capricious nature of academic jobs. But even some of those lose that awareness the longer they are inside. They become consumed with the stuff that people talk about--committees, tenure, grad students, the bad administration, etc. And they talk about those things as if they are givens.

But those of us outside the cult wonder. Maybe it is because, ultimately, I wasn't good enough. I don't know. And maybe that is the recurring dream--the fear that ultimately, I wasn't good enough to make it.

I am going to call a therapist tomorrow and see what we can do with this.

Chris Thile and Yo Yo Ma

And Aoife O'Donovan from Crooked Still and a few other fine musicians doing a beautiful number on Leno. Check it.

Income inequality

If the Tea Party changed the dialogue on cutting the deficit, the OWS people have done the same for income inequality. And with each new study, we see that income gap just widening and widening. It is really disgusting to see that the top 1% has seen their income go up by nearly 300% while the rest of us have barely seen movement, or have seen negative movement.

The difference between the left and right is that most people on the left actually care about the deficit too. We don't want to slash spending right now, and we absolutely want to raise taxes, but we want those deficits to come down too.

The right, however, doesn't care that a small plutocracy is forming with people with immense power and influence at the top. And they sure as hell don't care that people at the bottom are suffering. For any Republican, who votes with Paul Ryan and Ron Paul, to suggest otherwise is an exercise in self-deception.

Tea Partiers carrying guns--perfectly fine. OWS protesting banks? Tear gas time.

Saw that OWS protesters have been arrested in huge numbers. Have seen reports of disabled people, children and veterans attacked by cops.

Perhaps some of them were being disrespectful, I don't know. I know that Naomi Wolf says she was arrested for walking on a public sidewalk. And I know that the Tea Party used to shout epithets at congressmen and people in wheelchairs wanting healthcare. I know they openly carried weapons and waved signs threatening violence against the state. And I don't recall one instance of Tea Party rallies experiencing rubber bullets or tear gas. What is more, Fox News promoted these events, and sent their personalities to appear a them. NPR just fired someone for attending an OWS event.

Don't tell me the left and right are the same in this country. Just don't.

Anne Graham Lotz

Heard this interview on NPR and it speaks to everything that bugs me about evangelical Christianity.

She has no sense that her brother Franklin has operated as a religious and political hack. But worse, she claims that all of them--her brother, her dad, and herself, have all just followed what God wanted them to do. So God wanted Franklin to question Obama's Christianity, blame the Japanese Tsunami on God, and suggest that Obama had allowed Islamic extremists to infiltrate our government? Hmm.

It is amazing. In that circle, God's will is whatever you want it to be. It is almost always what the person claiming it believes, personally, and almost always a reflection of their own personal world-view. But never is God called to account when Brother Franklin goes off the rails and acts like an ass. Never.

If anyone wants a reason why evangelical Christianity leaves me cold, this is as good as any.

Palin: Already Almost Forgotten

While this was hardly news, nor surprising, the former half-time Alaska Governor bowed out of the 2012 race. Few thought she would really run--mostly because she has made a career out of being famous, not being good at governing. And, as any of her statements show, she has no interest in policy. No, she is, like Huckabee, adept at exploiting her base for money, while never seriously wanting to do anything for the country.

Her announcement was bizarre--a presser read by Mark Levine while Sarah Palin was on the phone with his show. Weird. Then later, she told Greta that she didn't want to make a big deal about her announcement like that of Chris Christie. She is a piece of work, that is for sure.

David Frum routinely annoys me, and has since he bragged about coining the "axis of evil" phrase for Bush. But he is a rarity these days--a semi-rational Republican, and he has perhaps the best takedown of Palin I have read:

Sarah Palin was the ultimate taker. She abandoned her post as governor of Alaska to cash in on lectures and TV. She squeezed her supporters for political donations and spent the money on herself. To adapt an old phrase, she seen her opportunities and she took ‘em.

In the end, she exploited, abused, or embarrassed almost everyone who had believed in her. Most embarrassing of all: she was never even a very good con artist. Everything that was false and petty and unqualified in her was visible within the first minutes of encountering her. The people she fooled were people who passionately wished to be fooled.

Ouch. Not only about Palin, but about those who cheered her and told me how they loved her values.

Conservative Christian bullshit about poverty

Sorry. But I have to call it like it is. I have had two or three conservative Christians trot this argument out as if it is a game changer. The argument goes as follows: "Jesus wasn't concerned with changing the world as much as he was changing the hearts and minds of the people. Feeding the poor is not a bad thing, but if that is all you do, then it is, because those people can only change if they develop a relationship with Christ. Ergo, anti-poverty efforts are just missing the point."

Of course, the big problem here is that there is no inherent reason that people on welfare or food stamps, or being fed by hand--cannot also be ministered to by people trying to change their soul. Those who say that social justice is missing the point by focusing on the material world--in the same damn breath, voice opposition to their own material wealth being used to feed the poor.

Which is it?

If the relationship with Jesus is the be all, and end all, then what the fuck do you care about your taxes? Seriously? Your money is not yours, as you preach, and since the relationship is all you value, then what do you care if your tax dollars are given to poor black women who have children on purpose? Because by your own argument, you will be trying to change their spiritual world, and you don't really care about their physical world.

Unless you do. Unless you actually care very much about your material wealth. And unless you actually want those poor people to be uncomfortable as much as possible.

I am guessing that when you say that God will "provide" for you, you don't really mean that. You mean that maybe he will, but in the meantime, you are going to hold on to your pennies unless you deem the person in need to be suitably uncomfortable and worthy. And while you think the poor may be too obsessed with their lack of material wealth, your own material wealth is incredibly important to you.

Bullshit.

Bill Maher: GOP candidate Jesus Christ

Just about brilliant:

And that's the downside to living in a fantasy world. For a Republican candidate to not disappoint you, he would have to be Jesus of Nazareth. And even Jesus would be toast after a few news cycles. Because "feed the hungry"? Sounds suspiciously like welfare. And "heal the sick"... for free?? (wild audience applause) That is definitely Obamacare! And "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you didn't hear, Jesus, but this is the party that cheers executions.

So here now is the short campaign timeline of Jesus Christ, Republican candidate.

Day 3

Three days after Jesus announces he's in, a Gingrich spokesman reports that he read Jesus's book... and finds some aspects of it troubling. Mitt Romney says Jesus's previous statements make him appear anti-business. And Rick Perry asks if America is ready for a Jewish President. And then Rick eats a paint chip.

Day 7

At the Republican debate, the other candidates pile on the new frontrunner. Michele Bachmann calls the meek inheriting the earth a colossal expansion of the estate tax. And Newt Gingrich scores the big zinger when he says, "Mr. Christ, America can't afford another cheek!"

Day 9

Teabaggers start getting e-mails from their idiot brother-in-law about how Jesus is not even from this country. (wild audience applause) And was born alongside a bunch of animals in a manger. And not to harp on it, but where's the birth certificate? And if he's a carpenter, is he too pro-union?

Day 10

Jesus is now polling fourth behind Perry, Romney, and the pizza guy. And in a desperate attempt to gain credibility, he goes to New York and has coffee with Trump... who pronounces him, "a decent guy, but a little effeminate".

Dogs and people

Today has been a pretty good day. Beautiful weather here in OK, and I don't have pressing work for tomorrow. SOF does, however, and has been working insane hours.

But we both took our dogs to our new pastime--Flyball. We have been looking for something for Grace as she clearly needs a job. She is still too young to do much of the Flyball stuff, but she does some straight races over hurdles. I posted some videos for you to see a little Flyball.

But back to my topic. This afternoon, after SOF went back to work, I ran by our Natural History Museum where our Flyball team put on a demonstration. The museum just unveiled an exhibit on the evolution of wolves into dogs, and so had a big dog day (called Woofstock) where people could adopt dogs, connect to dog organizations, see Flyball, etc.

I ended up helping the team during a demo--which was fun, but then took a quick run through the exhibit. It had to be quick, because I was afraid I would just start bawling there in the museum. Started with the opening exhibit about how dogs are human's oldest companions. They have ancient examples of humans sharing protein and shelter--when those were hardly things they had to share.

I know why the ancients did that. I have seen Streak on the fringe of my vision several times lately--just remembering how he was always there, and always with me. And now Grace is there--checking on me when I am upset--and so glad to see me when I come home. And I watch Abbie follow SOF around the house.

Anyway. This is hardly news, but I am constantly in awe of what dogs can do for humans. I didn't need a museum exhibit to tell me. Nor did I need to to show me the connection. But I am glad they have it, and perhaps when I am braver, I will go back and give it more time.

Hey, Mitch Daniels, perhaps you should have thought of fiscal issues when you worked for Bush

Incredibly frustrating interview on NPR with Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. This little news blurb only focuses on the ponzi scheme crap, but the bigger issue is that he is suggesting that this is a watershed year where Americans can rethink Medicare if Republicans are strong enough. Because, of course, we are in a bad financial situation.

Yeah, I get that, but one of my biggest frustrations right now is the Republicans who drove us into the fucking ditch now complaining about fiscal responsibility. Since they are fond of the house economy metaphor, it is like the home owner deciding--after purchasing the house--to purposefully cut his income by 50%, but then telling the bank, "hey, I can't afford this house, and it is your fault."

Or as I told a very annoying Republican the other day, the scenario is a bit like this: our city is on fire, and the Republicans don't want to talk about blame because blame is besides the point--it is political gamesmanship--unless, of course, the blame is Obama or Clinton. After all, both the Fire Dept and the Arsonist are equally to blame. But no, we should not talk about blame, but talk about the fire that we refuse to put out. No, we can't put out the fire, because we can't afford to put it out, and the only way we can put out the fire is to take money from the widows and orphans or the terrorists win. But we should talk to the arsonists to see what they think, because their ideas are better anyway. Sure there are some extremists in the arsonist party, but so with the Fire dept. Sure, the Arsonists are led by their extremists, but the Fire Dept has Maxine Waters. And Obama may not really be a Christian. But we can't raise taxes to fight the fire, because that will just punish the fire producers. And we can't really trust the Fire Department, the Arsonists say, because they know--they used to run it and they refused to put out fires. Proves that the Fire Department is inept. Duh.

Yeah, I know that all sounds ridiculous, but no more so than what passes for Republican thought these days. It is depressing.

Georgia about to execute and innocent man

By all accounts, at the very least, there is more than reasonable doubt about his guilt.

Which reminds me of the very clear truth that American Christians only believe the Bible when it serves their political beliefs. That passage Monk pointed us to in Exodus suggests that God would be very angry with the execution of an innocent man, yet I see no hand-wringing from the right. No fears that they might be aiding and abetting an injustice. No, from my conservative friends, all I hear is the morality, or Biblical support for the death penalty.

Sigh.

I love Elizabeth Warren

Just check how clearly and nicely she points out the obscenity of the "class warfare" nonsense.

Disappointing

Not surprising, but disappointing. I have a conversation ongoing with a few conservative Christians through Facebook, and I am rather amazed at their lack of knowledge. One told me that feeding the poor was a "suggestion" but the real issue was getting them to Jesus.

No word about what to do to the poor people who have already converted. I guess they are good.

The other spouted Fox News talking points on everything from taxation rates, to welfare, to government ineptitude. This, from a guy who "ministers" to college students. Is it too much to ask that they at least have their facts straight?

Evidently. Jesus doesn't require attention to detail. Just fervency.

Pass.

For our discussion on the Death Penalty: Perry says Court was right to stay the execution Perry himself was more than ready to allow.

Perry Says Supreme Court ‘Taking The Appropriate Path’ In Stopping Execution, Even Though He Was Set To Allow It | ThinkProgress.

I would say, what an idiot, but this kind of callousness about human life is more than stupidity. It is something about basic cruelty.

Michele Bachmann is not just a liar, she is an irresponsible bitch!

Maybe I am the only one hung up this. Maybe I am the only one who somehow is trying to make sense of people who claim the Bible as their guide and then do unspeakable things. And not just in their weakness, but on purpose and without apology.

For me, this latest by Michele Bachmann is the most irresponsible callous and cynical thing she could possibly do. To make political points, she spread lies about Gardosil and then refuses to even consider what she did. There is something unbelievable about someone this hateful to put forward a completely anecdotal story about some woman with a retardation side effect, and then say, "the American people can make up their own mind." No, you fucktard, you are asking the American people to elect you to the highest office, and you don't just get to throw around such accusations. You don't get to cause parents to not vaccinate their kids and possibly open them to serious illness down the road, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE A CONNIVING BITCH.

But it is all good. God told her to run, and he doesn't do bad stuff. Obviously everyone here can see this shit for what it is. Too bad the entire Republican party has decided to abdicate such responsibility and take the risk that a soul-less moron like this could one day be President. Fuck that.

Faith? Or Gullibility?

Leighton, as he often does, made a very insightful comment on the blog post about Rick Perry as some kind of "super christian" (my words, btw).

It's not just that the U.S. Christian experience doesn't require deep thinking. It also discourages even basic situational awareness and wariness of being manipulated, almost to the point where gullibility is considered a spiritual virtue.

The first part, we have talked about at length here. The deep thinking theologians of the past are gone from most American Christian's lives, to be replaced by Max Lucado and the Purpose Driven Life, or Prayer of Jabez. Those people may be genuine in their faith, I really don't know. But their approach is paper thin, and easily understood, which further leads to the idea that Christianity is easy and apparent.

But it is that second part that has me thinking. I know many, many, many people of faith, and consider myself one. But I have seen an increasing amount of this kind of gullibility masquerading as faith. We see it in our political figures all the time. But I think it has to do with the increasing emphasis on the "personal relationship" and a sharp decrease in both critical thinking and accountability. When it is all about the personal relationship, then when someone says, "God told me this" who can disagree? Who can say? And in fact, speaking to Leighton's point, questioning that is not a virtue, or about accountability, but rather discouraged. Those kind of pronouncements are meant to be greeted with nodding heads and "amens." Which has given us George Bush telling us that God told him to invade Iraq, and everyone in the GOP platform assuring us that God is their bestest buddy and the one from which they get all their insight and values. Like killing people. Or mocking the poor.

As a kid, I loved Louis L'Amour books, and probably read all of them multiple times. Cheesy, but fun, and in that vein, one of the characters was fond of saying, "Trust in the Lord, but keep your powder dry." The metaphor of taking care of what you could, while maintaining some faith in something bigger than yourself has always made sense to me. Because I don't want to dismiss completely the supernatural nor the issue of faith in the people around me. There are too many I respect who can speak to elements of that. But surely the critical thinking and groundedness has a place too.

Does God heal? I have no clue. I haven't ever seen it, but in the mode of our current language, any medical turnaround would be deemed God's healing. Any rational explanation is immediately dismissed. And in fact, as we have talked about here, faith is simply inserted in areas where the rational and logical explanation is unwelcome. Don't like evolution? That's ok. You can just insert faith instead and talk about what you believe or don't believe.

Does God communicate directly to people? I have no idea. He doesn't to me, but I am not so arrogant to assume that I am the norm. But I do know this. I can't even count the times that someone has said "God led me to this" that turned out to be a bad idea. But you can't question those callings or "words" from God, and seemingly, you can't even follow up after and just fess up that it wasn't God at all, but the little "me" that wanted to do that.

Because what passes for faith now is starting to really piss me off. It is the kind of faith that has millions of Christians sitting on their hands (or worse) while their representatives demonize the poor, celebrate the deaths of others, defend torture, and brag about destroying God's creation. If conservative Christianity can't see through that?