Fiscal conservatism?

Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible and to be fiscally conservative.  That means saving money, having a balanced budget, etc.  

But from where I sit, I see an awful lot of conservative proposals that do not save money, but actually cost the state or federal government.  Here are a couple:

1. Passing unconstitutional laws as exercise in defiance.  These usually require the state or federal government to defend those laws in court.  Examples include:
• DOMA at the federal level.  Republicans are funding the defense, all at the same time while cutting WIC and other safety net programs.  
• State efforts to test welfare recipients for drugs.  Questionable under 4th amendment (and Florida's law just got thrown out on those grounds.
• Anti-abortion laws that proponents know will be thrown out.  Attacking access to abortion clearly trumps any claim for fiscal conservatism.  
2. Then there are those laws that are supposed to save money but do not.  
• Best example that I can think of are the aforementioned laws drug testing welfare recipients.  Every study I have seen suggests that welfare recipients use drugs at the same level as non-welfare recipients.  Small percentage, actually, and so the savings to the system are usually vastly out weighed by cost of administering the program.  
• Here in OK, the House Speaker has proposed a law to mandate that able-bodied persons spend somewhere around 30 hours a week in "work like" activity (or something of that sort.  Requires more staff and oversight to make sure that this actually occurs, and the estimates were that it would cost far more to implement than you would see in actual savings.  

Others?  I am not bashing conservatives here, but noting that the version that is leading most states and the House of Representatives seems to have not thought some of this through very well.  

10 years ago--the Iraq war

I remember it well.  I was returning from a ski trip with a friend and we stopped at a hotel in Tucumcari, New Mexico.  We knew the war was coming, but I still remember watching the beginning with great trepidation.  

I opposed that war very much.  When I knew we were going in, I hoped for the best that we would actually have success.  I pointed out to SOF (who was even more against the war) that we had a chance in Iraq to build something positive, given their history of institutions.

It wasn't long after when we found out--at least those of us paying attention--that the argument for the war had changed from WMD to exporting Democracy.  We learned there were no WMD, and that Colin Powell's speech at the UN was based on falsehoods fed to him by the war hawks in the admin.  (Powell's own biography revealed later that Cheney and others worked very hard to keep Powell in the dark.  After all, the last thing Cheney wanted was a thoughtful soldier looking at the big picture.)

Bush and Cheney still insist that they were right.  Interesting, btw, that Bush's speechwriter, David Frum--he of "axis of evil" fame--even admits now that the war was more about oil and American Exceptionalism than anything related to our national security.  But even his mea culpa glosses over key information and perpetuates misinformation, as Greenwald notes here.

For me, I have to say that this war has changed me in ways that I never anticipated.  Not only did we watch our government lie about this war at a brazen level, but we learned soon that that same government, led by a man who claimed, of course, to hold Jesus close to his heart and to speak to God on a daily basis--create one of the largest torture regimes since the Soviet Union.

Of course, for me, the biggest disillusionment has come from the church that raised me and taught me my morals.  Not only did they cheer the war, but they also defended, ignored, or openly supported the torture regime.  Since then, I have seen nothing from the vast bulk of them to suggest any more introspection than Bush and Cheney themselves.  Those Republicans who defended this war never lost support from their base.  Of course, as we see this week, the only thing that can really lose support from the uninformed base is to support gay marriage.  That's right.  You can defend torture all you want and the conservative base will vote for you.  But defend gay rights?

Over that last ten years, I have discovered that I am far more informed than most of my conservative friends.  Not all, of course, and certainly there are uninformed liberal voters as well.  But I have been rather stunned by the lack of information in many of my conservative friends.  Most of them didn't know about torture at any detailed level, and most of them have no idea what their party actually does.  They only know what it supposedly stands for.

Conservatives could gain some ground back by really assessing their actions and votes over the last ten years.  Some have.  I know a small group who supported Bush in 2000 but turned away as they realized the party was rotten to the core.  The others just ignore the past, or so it seems.  I doubt very much they will reassess.  As my former therapist said, "the best predictor of future behavior is the past.  That being said, people can change, but only through hard work."

Conservatives and poverty

My imagined dialogue between a person struggling to make ends meet and an average conservative voter.

Poor person:  I am struggling to make ends meet and that means that my family doesn't always have good food to eat.  We often skip meals, in fact.

Conservative voter:  You need to get a job and stop expecting others to take care of you.

PP: I have a job.  In fact, I have two.

CV:  Oh.  Then you need a better job or to ask for a raise.

PP:  I would love more money while working.  Perhaps we could raise the minimum wage?

CV:  No, that inconveniences people with money.  You should go to school and get better trained.

PP:  I would love to.  Can you help me get affordable loans and affordable tuition?

CV:  No.

PP:  Ok, in the meantime, could you assist me with some food stamps or TANF?

CV:  No, that is bad for you.

PP:  But I am working hard and trying to do the right thing by my family.  Why is that not enough?

CV:  Life isn't fair.  Sorry to be you.

PP:  I see a Jesus fish on your car.  Don't you believe that Jesus told you to help people like me?

CV:  I am helping people like you learn self-reliance and hard work.  I am helping those who have money because they have earned it and are not asking for a handout.

PP:  you mean like tax breaks for the wealthy people who have expensive horses or private jets?

CV:  You should not envy people who have more than you.

PP:  sigh.

PP:  Ok, what about healthcare?  My wife is sick and the bills are really adding up.

CV:  Healthcare is for the people who can afford it.  We don't let people die on the street here.  You can go to the emergency room.

PP:  but that is stupid.  My wife has a chronic illness that requires expensive medicines.  And our children have no healthcare coverage.

CV:  Stop asking for socialism.  You shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford to take care of them.

PP:  Should we have had that abortion?

CV:  Of course not.  You should have more money and the ability to take care of your family.

PP:  Sigh.

Government spending is bad for other people. Not for me.

Republicans Develop Sequestration Buyer’s Remorse | TPMDC

This is just beautiful.  Now, Republicans are quibbling with cuts to programs they like.  Kind of makes you wonder if they don't quite understand that they when they are attacking government that includes programs they like.

Fits my basic argument that most conservatives don't actually know the areas that government actually helps them until it is cut by some idiot conservative they voted for.

And this on gun stuff, btw:


Pro-Gun Measures Snuck into New Government Funding Bill:

A bipartisan Senate bill preventing a federal shutdown would make four long-standing gun protections permanent, including one preventing the Justice Department from requiring firearms dealers to conduct inventories to make sure weapons haven’t been stolen, congressional aides from both parties said. 

Another provision made permanent would prevent the government from changing the definition of antique guns, which can sometimes be easier to obtain than modern weapons. Two others would block the department from denying a license to firearms dealers who report no business activity, and require the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to include language in firearms data stating that the information can’t be used to make conclusions about gun crimes.

I love the idea that limiting access to information, refusing to track guns at all, and refusing to even consider addressing how guns are sold in this country should make me respect gun people.  

Gun laws and fewer deaths--Gun culture redux

Study Finds States With Most Gun Laws Have Fewest Gun Deaths But… | Here & Now.  I listened to this interview on the way home from work the other day.  To be very fair, I was pretty exhausted, but I found it enlightening.

The big takeaway, frankly, was the recognition that the gun lobby and gun culture have stymied research into gun deaths.  The numbers this doctor cited on suicides were enough to make one a little ill, but he kept noting that we don't have good data because the NRA and gun lobby won't let us.

I can't help but wonder if this comes from the conservative side that simply doesn't trust science.   Because investigating this should be a no-brainer.  I suspect that conservatives know that more guns doesn't make us more safe, and they fear that good studies might show that.  Otherwise, if more guns make us more safe, and if gun laws don't actually help, why not let the research money flow?  Why not get as much data as we can on child deaths or on suicide by gun, or accidental shootings in the home.  Likewise, why not gather as much data as we can on those incidents where gun ownership saves lives?

The least of these get the least attention

As people like Rand Paul cheer the sequestration and want even more cuts, the rest of the country appears to not care about who will suffer most from the cuts.

Poor Face Most Pain As Automatic Budget Cuts Take Effect - NYTimes.com: Unless a deal is reached to change the course of the cuts, housing programs would be hit particularly hard, with about 125,000 individuals and families put at risk of becoming homeless, the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimated. An additional 100,000 formerly homeless people might be removed from emergency shelters or other housing arrangements because of the cuts, the agency said.

I have had conversations with several conservatives about this issue.  None of them believe they are uncaring about the poor.  To the contrary, they get quite annoyed with me when I suggest that.  Yet the numbers are quite stark.  Republicans want these cuts to the poor to happen.  My conservative friends vote Republican because they say they believe in some form of fiscal responsibility.  Yet, those cuts will make more poor people suffer--of that there is no question.

I don't doubt that my conservative friends care about the poor and most of them either donate or volunteer to help the needy.  But as I have pointed out several times, that help is unlikely to increase now that there are more people in need.  It will not increase enough to make for these 200,000+ people who are now at risk for homelessness.

Who will make up the gap?  No one, is the likely answer.  Some charities will try, no doubt.  But all of them are over-burdened now as it is.  I have one friend who seems convinced that these cuts will be covered by some other government agency.  He has no idea if such an agency exists, but is sure someone will keep these people from dying in the street.

And yes, someone will, probably.  But that doesn't take away from the fact that this is a horrible and completely immoral way to address poverty.  If you haven't watched the new documentary on hunger, "A Place at the Table," it is well worth the rental.  One of the points they make very clear is that charity, while important and good, is not a long term solution.  It is there for emergency help, not long term change.  One of the more poignant images in the film is the cop who has not had a raise in years.  He now has to use local food pantries to make ends meet.  A cop.  A public servant is paid so poorly that he requires public assistance to eat.  And that doesn't even cover the impact of poor nutrition and hunger on developing children, or the shame and fear that accompanies this inability to feed their families.

So this is the upshot.  Conservatives want less government programs because they believe government cannot help poverty.  They want private charities--who cannot address systemic poverty. They can help here and there, and they are keeping people from starving.   But they cannot fix wage issues, healthcare, access to education and training, etc.  Yet, my conservative friends want to cut those government programs that help, turn things more over to the private charities who can only provide bandaids--all while tacitly acknowledging that they themselves will do no more to help the increasing number of needy.

Don't tell me they care about those needy who fall behind.  Or at least, let's acknowledge that that concern is a poor substitute for food or jobs.

Gun culture just a few doors down

I can barely type this right now, I am so livid.  If anyone gives a shit about the gun culture that I hate so much, this is it.  And this is so close to my house that I can't believe it.  We walk our dogs in front of this asshole's house.  School children walk this street every day.

Authorities say a man fired two shots at some people who stole a microphone the man was trying to sell on Craigslist. 

The alleged thieves were supposedly interested in buying the microphone, but instead swiped it once they arrived at the home. That is when the homeowner fired his weapon. At this time, police do not believe anyone was hit.

Police Respond To Shooting At Norman Home - News9.com - Oklahoma City, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports |

This is it.  This is the crazy nutjob insane and stupid gun culture.  The culture that says, I should fire a gun rather than just eat the loss of a microphone.  The report says they detained the homeowner.  I honestly wonder what will happen in the state that worships guns and gun rights.  The fact that he endangered all of us, I suspect will mean nothing to the Republican morons who run this state.

If any of you are wondering, these are the people who shouldn't have guns. And I would prefer that we do something about it before he shoots me, my wife, or my dogs.

Ruthless and people of faith

And then Jesus instructed the disciples to win at all costs.  "Love each other and treat each other with respect, unless you need to win a political battle.  Then do what works to win."

Or not.  But that was all I could think when I read the most recent proposal from Pennsylvania Republicans to change the way the state awards electoral votes.  The purpose is a concerted Republican effort to change the electoral college in order to win.  It works like this:  in battleground states that lean Democratic, but are controlled by Republican state houses, they would split up electoral votes based on US House districts.

An uninformed reader might think, "hey, that sounds fair, and the states have the right to determine how they manage those electoral votes."  But a closer reading reveals that this has nothing to do with fairness.  Those same Republicans have no intention of doing that in states like Texas that might have a few electoral votes from Austin, Houston and Dallas going blue.  No, the states that are Red on the map aren't going to split up their electoral votes.  Only those states that matter, and where they can take away votes from the Democrats.

This is the response of ruthless and unprincipled people, make no mistake.  It is an attempt to rig the game and displace the votes of minorities and other urban dwellers and allow the rural and more conservative part of the country dominate.  They don't want to change, see.  They don't want to be nice to Mexicans and blacks. They don't want to appeal to modern women.  They like believing that God wants all fetuses to be born, but not all children to be fed.  They like believing that rape can be a blessing from God.

What amazes me is the manner in which good, honest, and even moral people of faith find themselves in support of policies like this.  How does this happen?  How do people who read the Bible often, attend church weekly, participate in Bible Studies and Sunday School, and who say that Jesus Christ is their Savior and guide for life--how do they look at a situation like the one in Pennsylvania and think that is anything associated with their faith?  The vote rigging scandal is only one example.  Texas Senator Ted Cruz recently accused Sec of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel of accepting money from Iran and North Korea--without a shred of evidence.  Can you imagine Jesus doing that?

I suspect there are a lot of reasons for it.  Leighton has noted the tribal affiliation and others the low information portion of the conservative pool.  Some would suggest that conservatives are more open to authoritarian ideas and so defer to Republican leaders even when they defend the indefensible.

For me, at least today, the reasons are less important than the reality of people of faith endorsing a completely ruthless and scorched earth approach to, well, anything.  There is nothing ruthless about Christ.  I know I no longer attend church, but even I know that.  You don't talk about "turning the other cheek" if winning is the only acceptable option.  The GOP's version of Jesus would say that the one lost sheep was more than an acceptable loss.

And my conservative evangelical friends still look quizzically at me when I suggest that they are losing their witness.  If you can read about changing the rules of the game with no regard to fairness or justice--only to win power--and not speak out about it?  If you can watch a member of your party casually accuse his enemies of treason and not speak out about it?

If your Christ endorses ruthless and brutal tactics, he isn't Christ.  You might want to do some thinking about that.

 

Oh Good God

Not to poke the bear, but this is the gun culture of which I speak.

578.460. Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

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.