Robert Reich (RBReich) lists 15 economic lies Republicans (and many Democrats) believe

Robert Reich has a great list of tweets.  Given the nature of Twitter, I thought it might be useful to have them all here in one space.

1. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #15: All gov't spending the same. Truth: Public investments in infrastructure, education, & basic R&D spur ec growth.

   Expand
2. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #14: We're creating nation of "takers." Truth: Reason for rise in public benefits since '08 is joblessness.

   Expand
3. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #13: Raising taxes on rich slows economy. Truth: No such correlation. Ec grew faster betw '46 & '81 when taxes higher.

   Expand
4. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #12: Medicare must be cut. Truth: It's more efficient than private health insurance & should be expanded.

   Expand
5. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #11: Raising min wage kills jobs. Truth: It fuels demand. States with higher min wage have no higher unemployment.

   Expand
6. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #10: Wages are rising. Truth: Median wage continues to drop, adjusted for inflation. Now 8% below 2000.

   Expand
7. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #9: Social Sec in dire straights, must raise eligibility age & cut benefits. Truth: SS fine for 20 yrs. Raise ceiling.

   Expand
8. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #8: Unemployment benefits responsible for high joblessness. Truth: 3 people looking for jobs for every job opening.

   Expand
9. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

   Biggest economic lie #7: Super-wealthy over-taxed. Truth: Richest 400 Ams wealthier than bottom 150 milln together & pay pittance in taxes.

   Expand
10. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie #6: Inflation is just around the corner. Truth: Recession is just around the corner.

    Expand
11. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie #5: "Markets" exist without government. Truth: Government organizes, defines, and enforces the market.

    Expand
12. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie #4: Low-income Americans pay no taxes. Truth: They pay higher share of incomes in payroll and sales taxes than others.

    Expand
13. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie #3: Corporations need tax cuts. Truth: Corps sitting on almost $2 trillion, buying other corps, buying own stock.

    Expand
14. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie#2: Rich are the job creators. Truth: Broad middle class are job creators through their purchases.

    Expand
15. 1hRobert Reich ‏@RBReich

    Biggest economic lie #1: We must cut deficit now. Truth: Cutting deficit now robs economy of demand it needs, causing slowdown or recession.

    Expand

Nope, LaPierre isn't just another right wing nutjob

You can read all of it here::

Meanwhile, President Obama is leading this country to financial ruin, borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for phony “stimulus” spending and other payoffs for his political cronies. Nobody knows if or when the fiscal collapse will come, but if the country is broke, there likely won’t be enough money to pay for police protection. And the American people know it. 

Hurricanes. Tornadoes. Riots. Terrorists. Gangs. Lone criminals. These are perils we are sure to face—not just maybe. It’s not paranoia to buy a gun. It’s survival. It’s responsible behavior, and it’s time we encourage law-abiding Americans to do just that.

Obama is evil.  He will use any future mass murder as an excuse for a "tsunami of gun control."  Be very afraid of Mexicans, Muslims, and the fact that Obama is supposedly ruining our economy (perhaps on purpose).  No.  Buy a gun. Buy three.  Get ready to shoot your neighbors because we are descending into chaos because of anti-gun liberals and Obama.

Jesus.  This is the gun culture we fear.  This is the gun culture that thinks that Ted Nugent is a good spokesman.

This is the adult conversation I want

Liberals With Guns - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

And should be easy to see the difference between this and Steve Stockman inviting that idiot Ted Nugent to the SOTU speech.  I haven't seen anyone from the NRA suggest that was a bad idea.  Have you?  Does anyone here seriously think that Ted Nugent is a good representative for the responsible gun owners?

Anyone?

An update on the real world

This has been a rough couple of days.  My mother-in-law passed away last week and we just returned from her memorial service.  I didn't write about it last week--primarily because I was too busy, and also because I kind of enjoyed the distraction of arguing about guns and gun culture.

The service went well and did what those services are supposed to do.  I had major issues with many individual elements (the pastor is a nice guy, but could not stop from preaching rather than talking about my mother-in-law), but appreciate that it was a necessary step toward some kind of process of grieving this loss.

That said, and I think I will write more about this experience, I returned home to see the news that Republican Steve Stockman has invited Ted Nugent to the SOTU speech.  If you want any better example of the destructive culture that I keep trying to describe, look no further.

One more try on Gun Culture

Gun Shop Owner Protests Obama's Gun Proposals By Giving Away 1,000 Rounds Of Ammo | ThinkProgress

Yeah, that is kind of the problem.  This is not a level headed response.  This is a reactionary response.  Yet those of us who call it out are dismissed out of hand.

I think Jay asked a good question about my use of the phrase "gun culture."  I know it is a flawed phrase.  I need something more approaching Sullivan's "Christanist" to distinguish.  But as I noted in the comments, part of the problem is also the responsible gun owners who continue to suggest that everyone should have guns regardless of their personality or hot-headedness, or even their own needs.

Here is what I would like to see.   I would like to see a national gun organization--Steve asks why I pick on the NRA all the time after he has told me that they are still the best defenders of gun rights--to take their money and power and pulpit to address more than just the second amendment.  I would like to see a campaign that, instead of demonizing the President and accusing him of siding with some vague UN conspiracy or secretly wanting to take away all our guns--to do this instead.  Stand up and say:

First, let me note the obvious, that while the President and I disagree on some policies, he is not our enemy and is not trying to take away all our guns.  We may differ on certain gun regulations, but we all respect the Constitution, and we all want to reduce gun violence like the horror show we saw in Sandy Hook. 

Here are the steps we think we can take that meet that shared interest.  We will support those gun regulations already enacted and push our advocates to make sure those regulations are properly funded and supported.  Before we pass more regulation, we should make the ones we have work.  We will also support the universal background check as we used to support in the 1990s.  This too must be fully funded and supported and is a small price to pay to try to keep guns away from bad people.  

2nd, we are going to start a national campaign where we appeal to all Americans to think carefully about guns and their use--and we mean in both ways.  We want non-gun owners to see more than those who brandish guns to make a point, or who engage in senseless gun violence to settle petty disputes.  But we also want gun owners to recognize the legitimate fears of the non-gun owning population.  We will make very clear in our approach that anyone considering purchasing a gun should be very clear about why.  If they are buying it for personal protection, they need to be clear of what that might mean. If that isn't a good fit for them, they need to pursue other options for self defense. Gun buyers should undertake as much training as they can find, and ensure that their gun is secured at home away from children or others.  Gun safes, trigger locks, etc., should be a part of every conversation.  No one should buy a gun because they feel the need to brandish it in public, and guns should only be used when there are no other good alternatives.  

Third, while our democracy requires a vigilant population, we need to stop this constant discussion of needing these guns to fight our own army.  Our army is not our enemy.  Our government is not our enemy.  Our President is not our enemy.  

If LaPierre said any of that, I might take him seriously.  But he doesn't.  And neither does the industry pushing gun sales.  This approach won't sell as many guns.  

 

Gun Culture continued

This is really my take on the gun culture as well.

Murdered Over Dog Crap? - The Daily Beast:

When gun proponents talk about "defensive gun use," they invite us to imagine confrontations where one party is wholly blameless and the other party is murderously aggressive. Gayle Trotter conjured up just such a scenario in her imaginative testimony to Congress: mother alone at home with her babies; three or four or five bad men break into the house; what can she do other than mow them down with her AR-15? In real life, however, defensive gun use typically originates in confrontations to which both parties contributed - and in which the difference between aggressor and self-defender depends largely on the story told by the party who happens to survive. 

Unless you run a home meth lab, you are exceedingly unlikely to face a home invasion by armed intruders. In order to defend against wildly remote contingencies, Americans are instead arming themselves to turn disputes over dog crap into lethal duels.

Gun culture

I am sure that Steve will hate this, but Hunter is right, this is a crazy idea that women need 'scary-looking' guns to defend themselves.  As a friend of mine noted on FB, the sound of a pump shotgun loading a shell might be the best home defense in the world.  Certainly it seems nuts that you HAVE to have a very scary assault weapon to defend your home.  I call bullshit on that.

And I would note that the gun culture (that I differentiate from the responsible and sober gun owners out there) encourages this kind of mindset.  The country is going to hell and you better be ready to shoot someone.  No interest in helping that country not go to hell.  Just buy more guns.

What is more, and I think Smitty has spoken to some of this, the gun culture encourages people to get out there and do stuff with their guns.  I am not talking about the trainers and the sober people.  I am talking about the culture that suggests the Rambo ideal.  Like this guy.  Or another guy I read about who saw a guy pull into his drive way and went out and shot him.

Gun rights as facade to disconnect the social safety net

Milwaukee sheriff urges residents to get gun training, says simply calling 911 and waiting not best option | Appleton Post-Crescent | postcrescent.com

I suggested in December that part of this gun control discussion was about the kind of community we want in this country.  For many on the right, they seem to be saying, "we are not going to pay for security or other programs that benefit us all.  If you want to be safe, buy a gun."

Turns out, at least one sheriff is suggesting that exact thing.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com:

There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.

The right continues to head over the cliff to crazy land

First, this, given that we have been discussing gun control.  Daily Kos: Fox News 'psychiatrist' says Obama wants gun control because of 'abandonment' issues.  The insanity that is Fox News just continues to amaze.  These are the people who read Orwell as a manual.

And speaking of ruthless and racist bastards, they are trying to rig the future elections for President while they are at it.  This plan would reconfigure electoral college votes in Democratic leaning states to associate with congressional districts, not with the popular vote.  As Josh and every one looking at this has noted, this is an intensely racist approach.  The GOP, having lost every group except older white males has decided that instead of appealing to blacks, hispanics, women or Asians, they will simply disenfranchise them.

It worked very well for the segregated South.  Just when I think the GOP has hit rock bottom, they decide to just cheat openly.  This, mind you, from the group that was angling and even hoping that Romney would win the popular vote so they could declare Obama's presidency illegitimate (not that his victory changed that for so many of these fuckers), and were grousing about that even back in 08.  Now, they want to make it a very high likelihood that future Presidents would be Republicans who lost the popular vote.  And they don't care one bit.  Winning is everything.  How you do that--well, except for waving the Bible when you feel like it--is completely up to the crazy Republican.

One more from idiot land, and I will turn my attention to work.  In New Mexico, a Republican lawmaker has proposed a bill that would require a pregnant rape victim to carry the pregnancy to term to secure the evidence.  That's right, getting an abortion would constitute "destroying evidence," and the sponsor swears that the purpose is only to go after rapists.

"Brown said in a statement Thursday that she introduced the bill with the goal of punishing the person who commits incest or rape and then procures or facilitates an abortion to destroy the evidence of the crime.  New Mexico needs to strengthen its laws to deter sex offenders,” said Brown. “By adding this law in New Mexico, we can help to protect women across our state.”

One of the things I have observed in the abortion debate is how often the mother or future mother disappears.  Her needs, her health, her desires, or even her body--they simply disappear.  It is as if these conservatives only see a little tiny fetus hovering in the air.  They will use her to justify their actions and say that it is about "protecting women," but as in the Orwellian Republicans trying to protect forests and clean air, it really means that they don't care one bit about the woman involved.

I noted this to a pro-life friend, and pointed out how I could understand the basic opposition to a women who is (theoretically) promiscuous and careless and gets an abortion because she can't be bothered to take responsibility for herself.  In pro-life talk, she had the freedom to not have unprotected sex or to abstain all together, and now that she is "knocked up" that ship has sailed.

But with rape, all the pretense of choice and freedom disappear.  For some pro lifers (and polls suggest this is a small, but very vocal and very well represented in the GOP part of the population), since God ordains life at conception, then even the rape pregnancy is a "gift."  The fact that she had no choice at any stage of the process doesn't matter one bit.  How dare she raise an objection?  So what if she has to be reminded every day of her ordeal--that doesn't matter.

Sigh.

The last assault-weapons ban didn’t work. Will the new one be different?

The last assault-weapons ban didn’t work. Will the new one be different?

No confiscation in here.  FWIW

These particular gun rights people are idiots

And they happen to be elected members of the US Congress.  First, we have Ted Yoho who thinks that since the original amendment was about militias, and was intended (in his mind solely) to protect the citizens from their government, that citizens should have the same weaponry as the military.

Nope, that isn't crazy at all.

And from my own state of Oklahoma, Representative James Lankford blames gun violence on a combination of Social Security benefits and welfare moms.  No, really.  And the piece notes that he is the 5th ranking Republican in the House.

Nope, gun people are perfectly sane, and the Republican party is reasonable.  Very reasonable.  Nothing to fear here at all.

Guns and the far right

I am not trying to cause more anger in my threads (big part of that was mine, btw) over gun rights, but would like to at least place some of my fear in context.  As I said in my most recent comment, I do not fear my fellow responsible Americans who own guns, and who secure them from their children and teach those same kids from the moment they can crawl to respect and even fear those guns.

I fear people who equate extending healthcare to Hitler.  I fear people who can't even imagine that a black guy is their president.  I fear people who believe that the end of the world is just around the corner.

Left to their keyboards and discussion groups, no big deal.  But put them in an armed camp with a Glenn  Beck urging them to secede from the country and we have a problem.  And even the army recognizes that we have a threat from the right here in America.  As I posted on Facebook this morning, I remember when McVeigh set off a bomb a few blocks from my wife, the immediate explanation was that it had to be Islamic terrorists.  Even when we were looking for two white guys, that was the go-to explanation.  Americans, it seemed, could not do this to us.

Except they did.  And do.  In the last 10 years, I can remember numerous examples of right wingers on the attack against other Americans.  That has to be recognized here in the discussion about gun rights and gun control.  And it has to be added to our discussion of the gun culture.  When you combine paranoid and angry people (not necessarily mentally ill, btw) with easy access to guns that can kill a lot of people--and you have a problem.

I am not nuts to fear that.  Nor am I ignoring the Constitution.  And I am not equating those people with those of you who responsibly purchase and use guns.  So please don't say that in the comments.

The gun culture is nuts

Sorry.  I have respect for the people who really respect and appreciate guns.  I don't hunt any longer, but have no problem with that, and I respect the decision to have a gun in your home for self-defense--even though I am not sure it is a good idea.

But what I don't respect is the "gun culture" where owning guns is about bravado and people buy them just to buy them and out of some tribal loyalty to the right wing hatred of government.  I am constantly amazed at the right wing wingnuttery raving about everything from Obama as tyrant or comparing him to Hitler.  And owning guns is a part of that (though clearly not the only factor).  Lanza's mom owned the guns that killed her in order to protect her from some future dystopic economic failure.  A dystopia, I would add, that the entire right wing flogs and markets just as they do buying gold or selling MREs.  She then failed to secure her weapons from the son she said was unstable, and Sandy Hook happened.

Because for every reasonable person who takes extra precautions with their weapons, there are people like this who take a loaded fucking gun to a gun show and it accidentally discharges.

These are the people you are asking me to trust when you decide that more guns are better.  Just as adult Republicans will have to rescue their party from Michelle Bachmann, grownup and sober gun users need to rescue guns from the NRA and the idiots who run it.

NRA ad was not only awful and offensive, it was inaccurate

No, Sidwell Friends School has no armed guards

‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom | The Raw Story

‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom | The Raw Story

Speaking for My Tribe

Speaking for My Tribe | TPM Editors Blog:

Well, I want to be part of this debate too. I’m not a gun owner and, as I think as is the case for the more than half the people in the country who also aren’t gun owners, that means that for me guns are alien. And I have my own set of rights not to have gun culture run roughshod over me.

Exactly.

Yep, the NRA is as reasonable as any Tea Partier these days

NRA Warns Members That Confiscation Could Be Next | TPMMuckraker

Because regardless of what we liberals say, we really want to take all your guns and turn you into slaves--well, just before we load you into railroad cars to ship to concentration camps.

Yep.  Reasonable.  Sane.  That's your NRA

David Frum weighs in

on the NRA's ad attacking the Obama family:

the NRA's sneering references to the president's family are beyond the pale. As the makers of the NRA ad should know, and probably do know, the First Family has come under years of racially coded attack for their "uppityism," as Rush Limbaugh phrased it. This latest attack ad looks to many like only one more attempt to enflame an ancient American wound.

And Tomasky agrees:

Let’s start with the ad’s broken logic. A, the Obama family has Secret Service protection; B, other American families do not; C, because of this, Obama is an elitist and a hypocrite. It’s pretty ludicrous. Malia and Sasha Obama get lots of things because their father won the presidency. They also have a chauffeur; get to ride on a big fancy airplane free of charge and don’t have to endure any TSA-related indignities; live in a beautiful big house rent-free; and so on. By the ad’s logic, all of these are instances of hypocrisy.

Both men point out that the President's kids should be off limits.  

No, the NRA isn't sociopathic at all. Not one bit.

Nope, they just attack the President for having armed guards for his kids.  Because, of course, that is the real debate.  Securing the first family who is vulnerable for reasons that the rest of us don't even conceptualize, or having armed teachers in our schools.

Don't tell me the NRA is a reasonable organization.  Just don't.  This same week they issued a shooting app for the Iphone that included targets that were little coffins.  Good grief.

And this dawned on me.  If the Assault Weapon ban was so ineffective and did nothing, why does the NRA and gun groups hate it so much?  If it is just symbolic, then why would they care?

Statement from Sociopathic Guns and Shooting People Organization

NRA-ILA | Statement From the NRA Regarding Today's White House Task Force Meeting

While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.  It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. 

The rich statement of accusing the White House of coming in with their mind made up (pot, kettle), but only better when asking for background checks and closing loopholes on gun sales is an attack on honest Americans.

Don't tell me the NRA is reasonable.  I have heard their robo calls telling me how Obama was in league with the UN to help disabled people around the world take away our guns.  I have seen them blame 20 year old video games and suggest that all we need are armed teachers and principles.

I am not anti-second amendment.  I am not anti-gun, and I am not anti-gun owners.  But do not tell me that the NRA is anything other than a reactionary and sociopathic organization.

Report: States With Stand Your Ground Laws See More Homicides | ThinkProgress

Report: States With Stand Your Ground Laws See More Homicides | ThinkProgress

I have no idea if the study is well done or not.  Just interesting.

Republicans have been busy defending rapists and voting against storm victims

There are two things that used to be less political.  Trying to help women in domestic violence situations and responding to storm victims.  As Chris Christie said of storms, they hit blue states and red states alike.  It is an American issue.  Yet Republicans, including my two senators from a state prone to natural disasters voted against the funding for Hurricane Sandy victims.

That is bad enough.  For many of them, it is just fiscal blindness.  For others, I suspect a basic lack of compassion.  But the Republican House killing the Violence against Women Act is, as this writer put it, "Protecting rapists, murderers by killing VAWA."  I just read Louise Erdrich's The Round House, which is a novel about rape and violence against Indian women.  Turns out that something like 1 in 3 reservation women will be raped, and Indian mothers are often teaching their daughters to expect it.  But here is the thing.  Agood many of those rapes are by non-reservation males, and when they are not tribal members, the tribal justice system doesn't have the jurisdiction to prosecute those attacks on tribal land.  And those with the jurisdiction often decide to not prosecute.  This bill would have given more control to tribal authorities.  And that, as it turns out, is Eric Cantor's big sticking point.  Other Republicans don't like the protection extended to non citizens or lesbians.  Evidently because Republicans don't approve of those groups, their women don't deserve protection.  But there appears to be room to negotiate on those points.  Cantor, from what I read, will not budge on protecting Native women.  I even called Cantor's office to ask the reason, but the staffer had nothing for me.  No spin about civil liberties or transparency or whatever.  Nothing.

I read that Phyllis Schafly hates the bill because, it

is “as sex-discriminatory as legislation can get.” Why? Because it isn’t designed to protect men. Schlafly argues that domestic violence is a problem that affects men and women equally: “A Centers for Disease Control survey found that half of all partner violence was mutual, and 282 scholarly studies reported that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men.”

That's right.  The same people who insist that feminists and liberals are the ones equating men and women and not understanding physical differences are now asserting that actually women are just as aggressive and violent as men.  The numbers don't match that, but who the hell cares about facts?

But I expect this from people like Schafley.  She is reflexively and tribally conservative and if liberals want this bill, it has to be bad for her.  Cantor's insistence on protecting rapists and killers of Indian women, however, strikes me as even worse than anything Schafley has ever spewed.

Republicans appear to be outdoing themselves in their disdain for anyone who isn't white, male, fully abled, rich, Christian (conservative Protestant or Catholic).

It isn't the guns. It is the stupid.

God knows I find Joe Scarborough annoying and never watch his show.  His occasional moments of lucidity don't make up for the rest.  And that also applies to his conversion to the gun control side.  But here, I was more listening to the Republican mouthpiece for the NRA, and have to say that Joe is more right here than the doofus.  And you can see the NRA speak here--1) talking about guns is "politicizing" a tragedy. 2) Whatever we say, we can never say that any particular "gun" is a problem.  The problem has to be something else--video games, movies.  His mom.

Meanwhile, here is a little sanity on the suggestion that all of these people are just mentally ill--or at least, mentally ill in any technical way.

But there is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts. Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States  can be attributed to people with mental illness.

Again, I am not saying that the only problem here is guns.  I am not convinced that anyone needs a Bushmaster AR 15 for any legitimate reason beyond just liking the gun.  Nor am I convinced that the Second Amendment was really meant to be a license for everyone to have as many guns as they want.  That "well regulated militia" part just seems to have disappeared.

But by all means, let's fund mental health treatment, and we should do that even if doing so doesn't stop any shootings.  We should do that because it is the right thing to do.  And we can talk about video games and films.  I am unsure their impact, but have no problem with that discussion.  But we also have to talk about angry white males and we have to talk about guns.

Does the NRA defend hunters?

Just read this (A Moderate NRA - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast) and was reminded that my early years with the NRA (yes, I was a Junior Member) were all about hunting, and hunter's safety.  As this post suggests, an NRA devoted to that would be more moderate on a lot of environmental issues even if they were still pretty conservative on access to guns.

But they aren't.  I get the sense that the NRA is really only about defending the right to own guns that are about killing people.

And that is a shame.

More on this idea of privatizing security

From Alan Jacobs, via Ta-Nehisi Coates:  ('Order at Universal Gunpoint' - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic):

But what troubles me most about this suggestion -- and the general More Guns approach to social ills -- is the absolute abandonment of civil society it represents. It gives up on the rule of law in favor of a Hobbesian "war of every man against every man" in which we no longer have genuine neighbors, only potential enemies. You may trust your neighbor for now -- but you have high-powered recourse if he ever acts wrongly.
Whatever lack of open violence may be procured by this method is not peace or civil order, but rather a standoff, a Cold War maintained by the threat of mutually assured destruction. Moreover, the person who wishes to live this way, to maintain order at universal gunpoint, has an absolute trust in his own ability to use weapons wisely and well: he never for a moment asks whether he can be trusted with a gun. Of course he can! (But in literature we call this hubris.)
Is this really the best we can do? It might be if we lived in, say, the world described by Cormac McCarthy in The Road. But we don't. Our social order is flawed, but by no means bankrupt. Most of us live in peace and safety without the use of guns. It makes more sense to try to make that social order safer and safer, more and more genuinely peaceful, rather than descend voluntarily into a world governed by paranoia, in which one can only feel safe -- or, really, "safe" -- with cold steel strapped to one's ribcage.

As I have said, I think this is more about community than guns, per se.  As I posted on FB a few minutes ago, this is part and parcel of the anti-tax mantra that has nothing to do with job creation, but everything to do with disconnecting from the community and the social contract.  You want clean air?  Suck it up.  You want lighted streets?  Pull out your checkbook.  Same for maintained parks.

Of course, this breaks down if you are female and pregnant, and not ready to have a child.  You are not on your own there--sadly unless you want to keep the child.  But if you want safe schools?  Go buy a gun and prepared to shoot someone.  

On Gun control and community

Like many Americans, I have been thinking about this latest mass shooting.  Clearly the dynamic has changed since Friday, and some of that is probably good.  I am not completely sure why the 20 dead kids are that much more tragic than the 6 dead adults (excluding the shooter, of course, though that is also tragic).  Certainly no less tragic than the KC Chief player shooting the mother of his child and then himself to leave that child parentless.

But that aside, one thing I really like is that the conversation in certain circles is really honest and thoughtful.  Some liberals and progressives are genuinely asking about gun control and not just assuming that it is automatically going to help.  Josh Marshall asked about studies that purport to show lower violence in states with more restriction (can't find the link, sorry).  James Fallows and Jeffrey Goldberg are engaging with the idea that gun control may not be able to do what we want.  Talking points published this informed discussion (I think posted this the other day) on the changing nature of the gun culture, and that Fallows link also lists some reader responses trying to educate the non-gun public on the perils of restricting scary looking guns (as evidently the assault weapon ban did) rather than anything meaningful.

There has been more than our share of stupidity.  Mike Huckabee and James Dobson have both claimed that we are witnessing the result of moral decline, and Megan McCardle evidently (I didn't read the entire thing) suggested that we teach our kids to rush gunmen.  Ugh.  Tennessee and Michigan both moved to allow teachers to arm themselves in classrooms.  Double ugh.

But around the periphery of this discussion, I think, is a discussion about community.  I think it is completely reasonable to suggest that gun restrictions are no more helpful to society than our war on drugs--though I am not sure I completely agree.  But there are absolutely legitimate 2nd amendment issues at play here--regardless of what liberals believe.  I get that.  But the suggestion that teachers need to arm themselves struck a chord about community, or the lack there of.

Consider it this way.  On one hand, we are being told by conservatives that gun restrictions won't work and should not be used--but many of those same conservatives are also pushing to reduce elements of our community fabric.  Less money for cops and firemen--and of course less money for public health and mental health facilities.  In that context, telling the teacher to arm themselves sounds more like outsourcing than some Rambo approach to teaching.  It sounds, to my ear, as conservatives saying, "we won't pay for those things that might help, and we absolutely won't give up our right to purchase whatever crazy gun or bullet we want--but we will tell you that you are on your own and you better provide your own security."

Perfectly reasonable, as many of my conservative friends have said, to suggest that gun control simply won't make us safer.  But less reasonable to then ignore that Republicans are purposefully cutting programs that might make us more safe and which have nothing to do with guns.  Mental health professionals have told me that assistance for families dealing with mental illness is often one of the first budget cuts.  Putting more cops on the street is unthinkable in a context where raising taxes just a few percentage points is harder than getting authorization to invade a country.  And think about all of those health clinics that have closed over the past two decades.  Not saying that all of those in place would make us immune from school shootings, but those are policies that have a track record of helping communities be safer.

Focusing on the guns misses that broader connection, I think.  Part of our battle here is between conservatives who really don't want a broader "we are all in this together" and liberals who, however misguided on banning handguns (for example), who believe that that individual right is running straight into a crowd of innocent people.

More guns? Really?

Well, here we are again.  Another mass shooting.  Another discussion where people on the right say that "it isn't the right time to talk about gun violence or control," and another time where we decide to discuss only the issues of mental health treatment.  And I get that part, especially, and think that we need to devote far more resources to mental health and general health treatment.

But the right has already said that we need more guns in the mix.  Michigan just authorized more guns, and Nevada wants to add more.  Oklahoma authorized more legalized carry and on the talk shows, idiots like Louis Gohmert said that all of this would be better if the Principal had a gun in her office.  (Protection Or Peril? Gun Possession Of Questionable Value In An Assault, Study Finds).

A), as I posted on Facebook, I am tired of any discussion that includes the NRA.  They revealed themselves to be irresponsible when they defended everything from cop killer bullets to guns that could evade x-ray, and then catapulted the anti-government movement with the "jack booted thug" name for the ATF.  They aren't the voice of reasonable and responsible gun owners.  They may have been at one time, but no longer.

B) Mental illness may be a big factor here, but we need to stop assuming that because some white kid goes shooting that it is mental illness and not some other factor of privilege and resentment.  Easier, I guess, to believe that only mentally ill people would do this kind of evil thing, but we know from history that sane people can do amazingly awful things.

C) We have to be able to talk about reducing some access to mass killing machines.  This TPM reader talks about the slide from the NRA defending hunting rights to the gun culture of today--which is paranoid, about hoarding guns, and actually sells the idea that you should buy a gun to protect yourself because a Black president is dangerous to you.  That people can easily buy Kevlar vests, clips that hold unbelievable amount of rounds, and bullets that are far more dangerous--and do so with ease--should bother all of us.  Including gun owners.

D) And my most amazing anger is reserved for idiots like Mike Huckabee, who famously already blamed this last shooting on "removing God from the classroom."  Hey, fuckwad, if your God can be removed from the classroom by a bureaucrat or elderly justice, what kind of God is he or she?  Or is he or she the kid of God who pouts because his privilege has been revoked, and so decides to let 20 children die in a fit of spite?  Unbelievable stupidity, and Mike Huckabee is still talked about as a GOP PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE!  Jesus Christ.  Surely Christians can think some of this through.

I am tired of guns, and I am really tired of people who seem to worship guns.

Workers march on the Michigan capitol

Smitty sent me these images from this morning's protest.  Votes matter.  Especially when you vote for Republicans who would rather protect the rich than anything else.  

The attack on workers continues in Michigan

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  The national republican party justified voting against the UN Treaty on the rights of the Disabled because several of them suggested that the Senate should not ratify treaties during the lame duck session.  In Michigan, state Republicans decided that the lame duck was a perfect time to gut the unions that have built the middle class.  Our friend Smitty has more on this, and I just found this Youtube of a very angry Democratic senator speaking very eloquently about the people who will be harmed by this bill.



Conservatives have won over the last 30 years in their attacks on unions.  It started with Reagan taking on the air traffic controllers union and has culminated in this most recent attack on public sector unions.  I am constantly amazed to hear most of my conservative friends bash unions as corrupt and encouraging laziness instead of hard work.  But not one of them has explained how lower wages will actually help our economy.  We have seen wages stagnate at the lower middle class and working class level for the last 30 years.  Lower wages have not stopped outsourcing.  They have not made us more competitive, nor reduced poverty.

These moves have simply made the rich richer.  They have made the worker less safe (about which my Republican friends seem to care little), and they have served to whittle down benefits and pensions.  Contract, as it turns out, is only unassailable when it is about executive bonuses, not about teacher pensions.  Conservatives have appealed to some kind of resentment culture, and appealed effectively.  My conservative friends resent the idea that a laborers might make a good wage doing unremarkable, or unglamorous work.  Teachers, nurses, auto-workers, firefighters, bureaucrats--all of them should not make too much money.  God forbid they make a wage that allows them to purchase goods and services and contribute to the broader economy.

No, as the Walmart model shows us, better that the worker be paid so little that he or she has to rely on food stamps and Medicaid for food and healthcare.  And better, savagely, to then lobby to reduce both programs.

There is a vein of cruelty in the conservative mind that I think most conservatives are afraid to acknowledge.  Cruelty toward pregnant women, gays, and minorities--and as Michigan and Wisconsin demonstrate, toward people who work for a living.

Senate Republicans block treaty on the disabled--led by the religious right

Good example of everything that is wrong with the religious right's approach to knowledge and policy.  (Why the US just rejected a treaty based on its own laws - Quartz).  Religious conservatives objected to this treaty (based on the ADA) because many feared it would infringe on homeschoolers and/or encourage abortions of disabled fetuses.  I honestly don't understand how one could legitimately fear either, and neither did most adults in the room.

This is a good example of religious conservatives pushing fringe and conspiracy theories and a great example of how far to the right the GOP has moved in the last 16 years.  On the floor for the vote, was former Senator and Presidential candidate Bob Dole.  Dole is in ill health and left the hospital to try and lobby for this ratification vote--after all he worked this treaty for years.  But for 38 Republicans, Bob Dole was part of the establishment who would surrender American sovereignty to the evil UN.  We often joke that Ronald Reagan could not get elected in this context, but the party may be shifting so far to the right that even George W. Bush may have trouble with the base today.

Either way it is sad for both people of faith and for our public policy.

The GOP's disdain for the poor

I almost titled this, "the GOP's war on poor people," but decided that we are using the phrase "war on" far too many times to indicate something where people are not shot with guns or drones.  War is something else.

But the fact does remain, that the GOP continues to make life harder on the poor.  Here in Oklahoma, our Governor Fallin joins other Republican governors in rejecting both the expansion of Medicaid and the option to create a state healthcare exchange.  Both appear to be more about their ongoing battle with Obama and less to do with any heart-felt principled belief.  For all the talk about "unfunded mandates," both of these programs could be funded, and would have allowed thousands of Oklahomans access to healthcare.

I understand (though do not share) the argument that people must be required to try to work in order to get public assistance.  For me, I don't care if the person is drug addled or stupid or lazy or craven.  Their access to the basics of life are disconnected from whether or not I like or respect them.  But I get the idea that people might be discouraged from working if they can get food stamps or public assistance (even though the SNAP program is designed to push people off food stamps and discourage dependency).

But I do not understand this in the context of healthcare.  We spent last evening at a film premier for a local autism group, and came away quite impressed with the art and the autistic individuals.  But we also noted that most of them will need assistance and healthcare--that they will probably not be able to afford for most of their life.  Effort isn't an issue here.  Nor is it with most of those effected by Governor Fallin's decision.  This will disallow access to care for a lot of Oklahomans who work at jobs that pay too little or offer too few hours to qualify for benefits.

As Jon Stewart put it, we are seeing more and more rich Republicans try to disconnect from the social contract and just allow people at the bottom to fall.  Walmart pays their employees so little that most of them end up using food stamps or Medicaid--all while Walmart lobbies for Republican efforts to dismantle that very same safety net.  At that film premier last night, we noticed a lot of Republican voters who will benefit from Obama's policies for their children, but who (in most likelihood) voted for Romney's promise to repeal those same policies.

We are once again in the place where those who shout "Jesus" the loudest are working the hardest to make life harder on the poor and the sick.  And while I am no longer surprised by this, it still makes me sad.

Paul Ryan: I Didn't Lose Because Of The Issues, I Lost Because Of The 'Urban' Vote

Paul Ryan: I Didn't Lose Because Of The Issues, I Lost Because Of The 'Urban' Vote | ThinkProgress

Sigh.

Romney is exactly what we thought

There was always a part of me wondering if the Romney we imagined through the campaign was a fair depiction.  Was he really that disconnected from reality to think that the bottom 47% genuinely just wanted handouts?  Did he really not care about the poor?

Turns out Romney was exactly who we thought--a rich asshat who genuinely believes that non-white poor people are moochers.  (Romney Blames Loss On Obama’s ‘Big Gifts’ To Voters | TPM2012)

What an ass.

Obama wins second term

This election cycle has worn on me.  Perhaps 2008 was harder, I don't know, but watching Paul Ryan preparing to gut the safety net to finance the wealthy class frightened me.  Then there were all the indicators that suggested that Obama would lose, from the economy to the Romney ability to simply lie his way out of any situation.

Yesterday, I prepared for a loss, and so was pretty excited when I saw Obama victories in Pennsylvania.

Watching the two men speak last night, I was reminded of why I like Obama.  Romney said all the things he was supposed to, but I have to say he struck me as a person without a core.  I am not making too much of that concession speech--I think it is hard to speak well in that situation.  But he struck me as someone who just wanted to be President--whatever the voters wanted him to be.  This story struck that chord, with someone who knew what the right thing was, but could not act on it because the base and voters would not reward him for that.  So he chose the wrong way.

Obama, for all his flaws (and there are many) has always struck me as a genuinely compassionate person.  But watching him last night I wondered how it felt differently for him than the last time.  This time he knows full well the weight of the job, and had to return to it this morning.  Like me, I suspect he felt relief.

Who knows what this four years will bring.  I am glad that healthcare is protected for now, and pretty soon, we will see these provisions take place.  Still stunning that Obama could be hated and vilified for wanting to make sure people could hold on to healthcare coverage.  Something very wrong with that.

In other news, we saw the saw shocking erosion into the War on Drugs in Colorado and Washington state.  I am unsure about those changes, but really wonder if part of this is just not a reflection that the war has not worked.  My observations at the music festival a few weeks back confirms that.  But in a much bigger deal, marriage equality (cue the trolls) passed by a popular vote in several states.  As my friend Greg Horton noted on FB, that culture war is over.  The only people who don't realize it are those vested in keeping the anger and hatred stoked at the Family Research Council and other like groups.

I believe that the Republican party leadership sees that, and understands that some of their major planks will only survive in states like mine.  In the rest of the country, those stances will earn them a minority status.  Part of me hopes they continue with the racist madness, but the other part of me hopes that an adult Grownup Republican party returns with a viable and responsible approach to policy.

This blogger stated my hopes for this four years.

We chose health insurance for those who cannot afford it. We chose a softer approach to those seeking a better life within our borders. We chose – at least I hope we did – to begin healing our suffering planet. We chose the candidate who promised to protect the people who didn’t have a seat at the table of power, whose voices struggle to rise above the lobbyists, special interests and money that have flooded our political system.
Almost as important as what we chose is what we rejected.
We rejected a singular focus on cutting help for the poor to boost the incomes of the wealthy. 

For now, I will take solace in the fact that the most cynical campaign of my adult experience lost, and with that the billions spent by the Koch brothers and their ilk.  The battle isn't over, but today feels better than that Wednesday 8 years ago.   Lots to be grateful for today.

Republicans and morality

I have a lot of Republican family and friends. They are all, to a person, some of the most honest people I know. I can't imagine them cheating on their taxes or lying to get what they want any more than I can imagine that of my liberal friends. Yet, my conservative family and friends look the other way when their party attempts to stop people from voting (often based on race). Worse, they will vote for a person who lies more than he tells the truth. All because he isn't Obama. I will never understand that contradiction of moral people and an unhinged and immoral party.

The problem with the Pro-life movement is that it might not be as pro-life as they think

And no, I am not talking about other areas where they don't defend human life.  And in this instance, I am not even talking about pro-lifer's resistance to healthcare and nutrition for infants and young mothers.

All of those are legitimate issues, but now I am struck by the pro-life's disinterest in actually reducing abortions.  In my own discussions with some conservatives, I have yet to hear a response to questions about reducing abortions.  Their approach is predicated on banning abortions, in all but a few rare instances--most of which can be summarized as "when I think it is ok, not when some pregnant woman thinks so."

This link is an interesting take on some of this, but the other was this mind-blowing study that suggested that Obamacare's access to contraceptives might reduce abortion rates by as much as 75%.  If true, and I have no idea as to the study's bona fides, then, as this author notes, Obama becomes a "pro-life hero."

Who knows, but I will say that I have yet to get a conservative to answer this question:  "what if banning abortions didn't reduce them, but legalized abortion with good healthcare did?"  Not one response.

And I have a hypothesis, at least for some.  Many feminists and pro-choicers have argued that this comes from a Puritan disapproval of any sex outside their approved setting.  Others have suggested that, at heart, this constitutes a misogyny of the far right that has always been there, but rarely openly expressed as it was during the "Sandra Fluke as slut" incident.

And all of those have some validity, I think.  But I also wonder if this is not based at some level in the idea of the deification of motherhood.  It isn't that they don't want women to have sex (some of them know, after all, that some of these women getting abortions are married with kids.)  But the resistance to reducing abortions, I think, comes from the fact that their goal is to shame any woman who might question having children.  How dare a woman turn that down?

If you acknowledge that some abortions are reasonable, and decide to reduce those instances, you still acknowledge that some women don't want to be mothers, or don't want to be mothers in all instances.  But if you ignore the reduction strategies and instead push to ban all abortions, you not only shame those who have had them, but also any woman who might consider ending a pregnancy.

Sarah Sentilles schools Richard Mourdock

Sarah Sentilles speaks to something that has driven me batty over the past few years--the definitions of who God is and who he (always "he") is not.  I still remember church members assuring me that God was so much bigger than all of us that we could not comprehend him, but then diving into a discussion of things that God either hated or loved.  As I have pointed out to a few conservatives, that reading turns God into "everything and nothing" all at the same time.  He is simply a reflection of that individual's own fears, biases, beliefs, and not some external or objective being.

Sentilles uses the bizarro world of Richard Mourdock's views on pregnancy via rape to explore those disconnects (Rape and Richard Mourdock’s Semi-Omnipotent God | Sexuality/Gender | Religion Dispatches).  One of my FB friends read some of my early "what the fuck?" posts on Mourdock and accused me of misreading and misquoting the Senatorial candidate.  He wasn't saying God caused the rape, she said, but rather that God creates all life and that fetus should not be punished for the sins of the father (though the woman clearly should).

In Mourdock’s attempts to clear up his statement by arguing that it’s the pregnancy that results from the rape and not the rape itself that is a “gift from God” he’s making even less sense than he did the first time. If it’s only the pregnancy that’s the gift, then, as Amy Davidson points out in the New Yorker, Mourdock’s God is “an absent-minded God,” who must be looking in the other direction when the rape is occurring before “rush[ing] in to make the best of it.” Mourdock can’t eat his cake and have it, too. If the pregnancy is a gift from God and God is in control of everything, then the rape is also God’s work—for that’s how the woman got pregnant. 

Mourdock’s rape-and-pregnancy theology is clearly absurd, but the trickier part is that many who critiqued Mourdock’s statements also employed a variant of this logic when they insisted (as Mourdock later did) God is against rape.

 The whole thing is well worth reading.  My favorite, I think, was this near the end of the piece.

Mourdock’s appeal to God’s intention is used to shield him and his policies from critique. Hey, it’s not my fault I won’t let a rape victim get an abortion, I imagine him saying, choking back the tears. It’s God’s will! But whose God is Mourdock talking about? And why? And who benefits from his version of God? And who loses? I certainly haven’t heard Mourdock championing anti-poverty programs much, and God certainly says a lot more about poverty in the Bible than about abortion.
Ultimately, Mourdock’s statements reveal less about his beliefs than about his views of women. Would Mourdock call erectile dysfunction part of God’s plan? If a man can’t get it up is that God’s way of telling him not to reproduce? Not to have sex? And if it is, shouldn’t we make Viagra illegal?
Perhaps Mourdock would argue that God enabled the invention of Viagra. But then couldn’t you also argue that God helped invent abortions? That their existence is proof of God’s favor? Just how, exactly, are we to determine which medical interventions God intends and which ones God doesn’t?

A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote to deny care to the sick

As usual, Slacktivist says it better than I could.

If you plan to vote for Mitt Romney, you should look at their faces and learn their names. Maybe you can recite them to yourself as a reminder of how “pro-life” you are.

When you cast your vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and for their promise to repeal the law that eases the pain or saves the lives of all these people, at least have the decency to own up to it.

I have said something similar, but not quite as clearly.  

Why Torture Still Matters

Steve questioned the importance of torture in this election in our last thread.  I agree.  It is not on the radar screen, even though the Republicans have pledged to reverse Obama's ban on certain tortures.  And as several polls have shown, Bush's torture regime has succeeded in making torture more acceptable to American society.

But for me, torture is more than a policy debate.  It revealed the lack of core belief or morality in the conservative church--the very same church in which I was raised.

It is the "canary in the mineshaft," because unlike abortion, or wealth or slavery, or whatever other issue, torture has not been historically debated among Christians. Perhaps because Christians were often the target of torture in the ancient world, but there is no established Christian orthodoxy (that I know of) that finds torture acceptable. And I would suggest, that if we move back in time just a few decades, the people who shrug or defend torture now would not if the enemies looked different. As I have noted before, Ronald Reagan signed us into a treaty banning torture and no one denounced him when he did so. That was assumed to be basic American values. 

But Christianity has changed, and not for the better. This is not unique with me, but many have noted that the introduction of the so-called "moral voters" has politicized faith in a way that we hadn't seen in this country. Republicans, in my view, saw a group of people who were largely apolitical or disconnected from politics, but believed firmly, and decided to target them with social issues. 

In the beginning, those social issues fit within the religious framework of the conservative Christians (though you might be surprised to find out that protestants didn't mind abortion and even defended it strongly until around 1979). But feminism, gay rights, etc., proved a good way to make conservative Christian citizens into good and steady Republican voters. There was (and is) nothing inherently Christian about lower taxes or less government, but those have been combined into the moral values tent. 

Ok, so that worked for a while (even though I found it problematic at the time). But torture reveals something bigger than just a litmus test. It showed that conservative Christians were tribally conservative in a way that I didn't see. After all, had Clinton authorized torture, I suspect those same Christians would have seen that as proof of his immorality. But when one of their "tribe" authorized it, they backed it without even really thinking about it.  One of my Facebook friends defended torture almost explicitly because somehow Bush was on God's side.  The stupidity of that still stuns me.  As I told him, that is exactly how every goddamned tyrant justified torture.  

It is that tribal connection that bothers me the most. It has changed the way these Bible-believing, Church-attending Christians process moral issues.  If the issue is a conservative issue (abortion, gays, dependency) my friends view it through a (supposedly) Christian lens.  But if the issue is labeled "liberal" they view it through Republican lens.   How did torture become a liberal issue? When it was Soviet agents torturing downed pilots, or Chinese communists torturing Christians, it certainly wasn't a liberal issue. It was a clear violation of human rights and of basic human morality.  But torture, the environment, poverty, science, death penalty, etc., are now "liberal" issues and so are discussed in the political context rather than the moral.  

And given the problematic reading of scripture in those deemed religious, even the readings of abortion and gays become Republican talking points more than theologically informed discussions.  Even lying has become a politically framed issue, where Mitt's constant lies are seen only as political issues, not religious.  The irony of these same people pushing the Ten Commandments would be funny if it didn't have such consequence.  

Torture may have faded from the news, but for me, it will always be the issue that revealed, at least for me, the conservative church's transformation from religious institution to political tribe.

The GOP’s Secularism Problem

Several people have posted about the recent polling showing a decline in religious identification.  This post highlights the problem for the GOP, but it also, of course, poses a problem for the American church.

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.

As Sessions notes in the above link, many of the studies suggest that the disaffection with the church began during the Bush years, when the conservative church so closely aligned themselves with the Republican party.  Of course, we have not seen much separation since then--not over torture, not over attacks on the poor or women.

But as Fred Clark notes, the problem may be, in part, the fact that racism and hatred are not deal breakers for the conservative church.  As long as you oppose abortion and gays, you can do just about anything.  In fact, thinking about this recent campaign, many of the most racist Republican moments came in an appeal to evangelical voters.  And how did evangelicals respond?

Remember all the principled evangelical push-back against those efforts? No? Me neither, because that never happened. Here are some things you never heard during the GOP primaries: “Newt Gingrich drew criticism from evangelical voters for his racially charged attacks on ‘welfare queens.’” Or “Michele Bachmann lost evangelical support due to her comments about immigrants.” Or “Ron Paul’s newsletters flirting with white supremacists alienated the GOP’s evangelical bloc.” Or “Mitt Romney’s use of ‘illegal’ as a noun angers evangelical voters.”

That right there is a big part of why I have lost respect for the conservative evangelical church.  They said nothing about torture, and they have been lured by racism, not repelled by it.

It's Funny Because We're White

Ta-Nehisi Coates notes the white privilege issue behind Tagg Romney's anger at Obama.  This reminds me so very much of the 2008 election when whites usually saw McCain's anger as a good thing.  It revealed his passion and his dedication.  But when people used the words "anger" and "Obama" in any context, with either of them, it was a negative.  Most of my white friends didn't even acknowledge this, because I really don't think they could see it.

The same thing applied to Sarah Palin and her knocked up daughter.  Put that in the Obama family, and add the "local thug father" to the picture, and the right wing would have exploded with righteous anger.  This, they would have said, revealed a lack of morality in the Obamas.  But with Sarah, it was just fine.  And in fact, was a good thing.

Now, the spoiled rich white kid of a spoiled and racist liar Mitt Romney can get away with threatening to punch Obama in the face, because, as Coates says it, "Yes because a good whippin' would teach that Obama boy to mind his place."

I don't know that Tagg Romney is a racist.  I suspect he isn't any more than the rest of us.  But that is the point of white privilege.  It doesn't even dawn on him, or any one around him how that would not work the other way around.

Brewing for Democracy

I have been in a brewing frenzy this last month.  I had always planned on another double IPA and wanted to get a Winter beer brewed with room for some extended secondary time.  But when Obama released his two beer recipes, SOF put in her request for one.  So, three weeks ago, I brewed the Honey Porter.  

I used to love porters, but have not really had one I loved for sometime.  My tastes have changed, perhaps, and I have been drinking a lot of IPAs of various hop strength.  Speaking of that, I also brewed another version of Face Puncher--a super hopped beer that I only tried last spring because of the name.  But it is pretty good.  My hop-head friends love it.  And last, I brewed a Winter Warmer beer that I hope will be ready for Thanksgiving and Christmas.  

Last week's festival put me behind a bit, so yesterday, SOF helped me bottle both the Face Puncher and Obama White House Honey Porter.  It was an exhausting evening of sanitizing bottles and cleaning, but well worth it.  (Yes, I still bottle and kind of prefer it to the keg, because I can hand my friends a couple or take them to dinner parties with ease.) Oh, and because I discovered this cool site on the Interwebs where you can get custom bottle caps.  Oh yes. 

 Here you can see the reason Obama did well in the debate, as I chose to Obamasize my cap for the porter. And while I am wrestling with how to format the pictures in this version of Blogger, you can also see a close up below.  

On morality, tribalism, and this infernal election cycle

Hi everyone.  Assuming anyone is still out there.  I apologize for not writing lately.  We just returned from a music festival in Arkansas where we had a fabulous time with amazing friends.  To be fair, we also dealt with ridiculous porta potties, mud and an unbelievable amount of stoned hippies.  But we heard some amazing music (HoneyHoney, Rose's Pawn Shop, The Gourds, Sam Bush, Brown Bird) and further realized how many amazing people we have in our circle.  Our new friend Misti wrote about it here, and I am not sure I can come close to her great description of the magic that happened in the Arkansas mountains.

________


But back to the real world we came.  This election cycle has been an amazing assault on my belief in humanity.  I honestly didn't think that was possible after watching people of faith defend and support torture.  I seriously didn't.  I thought that was the bottom.

This time, I have spoken to more conservative evangelicals who still defend torture, or at the very best, had to be walked through it.  You know the drill.  "Sure, torture is bad, but you have to remember, it was a scary time and these are some bad people who behead people."  Blah blah blah.  One guy from my college BSU who now runs it told me just last month that he still wanted to see Obama's birth certificate.  I told him it had been released.  Twice.

I have yet to hear back from him. I am hoping some of that is shame, but I kind of doubt it.  The same guy told me that Romney (and this guy is, remember, a minister) was absolutely right about the bottom half not working hard enough and being dependent on government.  I sent him stats that showed that to be wrong, and heard nothing back.

I now believe that most of these people of faith are so tribally Republican that they have no idea.  They honestly can't tell where the Bible ends and the GOP platform starts.  They have no idea that the Bible says nothing about abortion or capitalism, and completely ignore any of it that challenges wealth, greed, or, goddamnit, justice.

Speaking of torture, I read this today (Death row inmate walks free due to DNA evidence | The Raw Story) and am just reminded that most of these same people know that our death penalty system is deeply flawed.  Or they would if they thought about it.  They distrust government when it comes to feeding the poor, but have no problem with that same government killing people for them.  Or torturing them.  Or, they simply don't give a shit.

I am reading a story in MoJo (not online yet) on the growing use of solitary confinement in our prisons for the most specious of reasons. We are placing people in solitary (the prisons don't call it that, btw) for years.  Fucking years.  The UN's people who study torture suggest that more than 15 days in solitary should be considered torture.  That kind of solitude messes with people's brains and internal systems.   The writer was in solitary in Iran as a political prisoner for 26 months, so he had an idea of how this worked.

But in our prison system, he notes, it is actually worse than fucking Iran.  One prisoner was in solitary for 42 YEARS and many have been in for more than 20. 20 years in solitary?  The guards in Iran told the author the very same justification for solitary that he heard in Pelican Bay.

I am really glad to see this story get some investigation, and hope that more than progressives read about this but one of the things I have learned over the last decade is that Americans--especially those who talk about morality the most--simply don't care if we are torturing people. Not people accused vaguely of terrorism, or in the wrong place at the wrong time. And certainly not people in our massive prison system.

For a former Baptist to realize that so many conservative, bible-reading, Church going, Christian-talking people don't care about anyone who is not in their own circle or tribe--that is something I still can't quite grasp.

Obama: U.S. Won’t Let Iran Gain Nuclear Weapon

Haven't posted in a while, but saw this and saw Romney's response:  "Romney said the U.S. seems “at the mercy of events rather than shaping events.” (Story link).  Tonight I listened to a story on Netanyahu's UN speech where he talked about creating a "red line" that will somehow stop Iran from moving forward.

I think all of them are slightly deranged.  Obama, at least, shows some humility in this region, but the rest seem to assume we can just "invade" our policy into place.  What really amazes me about Republicans (especially) is their short memory.  The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts didn't exactly go according to plan, but here we are just a decade later with the same people pushing for another war in the Middle East to stop some theoretical threat.

Reminds me of the film, the Ox Bow Incident, where the crowd hangs the wrong people.  At the bar, after they know clearly that they hung the wrong people, one of the posse says that they should actually hang the leader of the posse.

Sigh.

This is what happens when Christianity loses its brain, and ultimately its heart.

Remember Ralph Reed?  Young and charismatic leader of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition?  Then disgraced partner of Jack Abramoff?


Yeah, he is back.  

But outraged by the election of Barack Obama, and responding to what he describes as God’s call (via Sean Hannity), Reed returned to start the Faith and Freedom Coalition with the aim of toppling Barack Obama from the White House.

But let's remember what he did with Abramoff.  They were hired by people in the Mariana Islands to stop potential labor reforms.  See, they were bringing in Chinese women, abusing them, using them as prostitutes and even forcing them to have abortions.  Some decided to try to clean those sweatshops up, because, since they are under American control, their work was sold as "made in America."

One would think, as I used to naively believe, the Christian in this story would be trying to clean up that situation and help those women.  Yeah, not so much.  Instead, he told Alabama Christians to oppose this reform because it was some liberal plot.

(You can read part of it here) : Of course, Reed didn’t tell those Christians he was being paid to help keep running sweatshops that exploited women. Instead, he told them the reforms were a trick orchestrated by the left and organized labor. Limits on Chinese workers would keep them from being “exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” His company explained it was just trying to encourage “grass roots citizens to promote the propagation of the Gospel” and that many of the workers were “converted to the Christian faith and return to China with Bibles in hand.”

Oh, and they are still working on that.  Opposing labor reforms was included in the fucking GOP platform.

I don't think words can describe how much I loathe these people, and how amazingly disappointing it is that Christians today are so easily duped.  What is worse, if they are told this story, they will simply ignore and support Reed.  After all, he heard a call from God.

Do religious people give more than unchurched?

Actually, I still don't know the answer to that.  We have commonly assumed that conservative religious people give more than others.  I have always had a little problem with that assumption, just in that the idea that you give to pay for air conditioning for your church is not, inherently, a charitable gift.  It certainly isn't inherently giving to people who need it.

Now this essay suggests there are studies that suggest that even church goers give less than they think.  And not just church goers, mind you.  Part of the problem here is not unique to people of faith, though they suggest that religious people believe that they should give even if they don't.

From 1968 to 2009, member giving to church finances as a percentage of income decreased from 2.45 percent to 2.04 percent, a decline of 17 percent. Far more dramatic has been the decline in giving for benevolences, or the broader mission of the church ranging from supporting seminaries to feeding the poor. Per member giving for benevolences dropped 48 percent, from .66 percent of income in 1968 to .34 percent in 2009, empty tomb reported.

One reason, said Sylvia Ronsvalle of empty tomb, is the church did not offer a positive alternative to the rampant consumerism in the affluent post-World War II society. Religious individuals today may be confused about what constitutes successful giving since all many of them are asked to do is the minimum to keep the local congregation going.

"We've succeeded at maintenance," she said. "But is that what we're supposed to be succeeding at? No."

In Smith, Emerson and Snell's book, the data shows, among other things, that one out of five U.S. Christians gives no money to charity or that nearly three-quarters give less than 2 percent of their income. "The majority of American Christians are actually quite ungenerous financial givers" given the teachings of their faith and their potential for generosity, they reported.

"It would appear that American Christians have much soul searching to do about the question of money," the authors concluded.