More on the GOP's war on the poor

Saw this tweet from columnist Charles Blow:

CharlesMBlow: ...Pain for Dem constituents (the poor) will be real. There are many of them. Pain for Repubs will be on principle. How many ppl own jets?

And it is worth walking out. The cuts that Republicans have already enacted and are pushing for will result in actual and real deprivation. Elderly people who can't quite have their prescription and their food. Or middle class people struggling to pay for nursing home care--or that family with the disabled child.

Those people will miss meals, suffer more hardship, and in some cases will die sooner than they would have.

On the other hand, the rich are being asked to dip into their rising wealth. Inequality is growing at leaps and bounds, but we will continue to ask the poor to contribute to the deficit and bow to the wealthy.

And clearly, for conservative Christians, social justice is simply not important.

GOP and the wealthy win

Two stories from this morning that completely ruined my coffee. The first Chris Hayes called "terrifying" is this story about Obama floating deep Social Security cuts to assuage the fucking ransoming GOP. Yeah, let's take the best social safety net of the last 100 years and offer it up as a chip to hijackers for what? Yeah, for what? For nominal talks about closing loopholes--oh, and the GOP says that any loophole closed has to be paid for. No new revenue. Fuckers.

But when asked about the idea of shared sacrifice, the GOP is clear about who they serve. Leave 'Em Alone! Republicans Explain How The Rich Can Contribute To Debt Reduction | TPMDC.

A shorter version? The rich make jobs, and they already pay taxes, so leave them alone. Beg them to stay and make jobs. That is their sacrifice. Never mind that they continue to get richer and richer and leave people behind. And never mind that all of this is intended on further distancing the rich from any obligation to the poor and middle class.

A bad day, and a bad day for Obama. He is selling us out.

So Casey Anthony was found not guilty?

And here is the deal. I had not heard of the trial until yesterday's verdict. I saw buzz on Facebook and had to google the name. I guess that proves that I don't watch cable news and that the news I read online doesn't cover this kind of story.

But now I am caught up, and my reaction is that our country is seriously messed up. This is the story that captivates the entire nation, while Republicans threatening to crater our economy is simply ignored. I am certainly not saying that the death of this little girl is trivial, because it certainly is not. It is a deeply tragic story. But watching the news last night, I saw a level of obsession with the story, the characters, and the outcome that seemed to belie the context.

So I have multiple objections. The first is the same I felt after the OJ trial when people start slamming the jury. Nancy Grace doesn't get to execute people she thinks are guilty, and the system is set so that it is difficult to convict people. But further, I am always amused (if amusement is the right word--and I don't think it is) when people are so dismissive of a jury verdict like this, but somehow convinced that all the people we execute are dead-bang guilty. If the system is so flawed to let this woman wrongly slide, why are they not skeptical about the people sent to the chair?

And the other is, as always, a sense that the media focuses on the easy, and ignores the difficult. I understand the grief over this little girl, but, as I noted, there are key political issues that go unnoticed. Republicans killing the economy is one, but another and equally vexing one is the budget cuts that will endanger thousands of young girls like Caylee Anthony. How do people express grief over one lost girl, but have no difficulty voting to cut off funding for thousands of kids, some of whom have disabilities or are in foster care?

But the media prefers these stories because they have natural drama, and require almost no intelligence to sell. And the public prefers a story that is simple to those that are tough to understand.

And we are all lessened.

Even David Brooks thinks the GOP is crazy

And this is close to the best, concise explanation I have read:

"The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency. A nation makes a sacred pledge to pay the money back when it borrows money. But the members of this movement talk blandly of default and are willing to stain their nation’s honor.

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name. Economists have identified many factors that contribute to economic growth, ranging from the productivity of the work force to the share of private savings that is available for private investment. Tax levels matter, but they are far from the only or even the most important factor.

But to members of this movement, tax levels are everything. Members of this tendency have taken a small piece of economic policy and turned it into a sacred fixation. They are willing to cut education and research to preserve tax expenditures. Manufacturing employment is cratering even as output rises, but members of this movement somehow believe such problems can be addressed so long as they continue to worship their idol."

Ok, this made my day--Should we teach Math in schools?

A wonderful parody of the questions posed to Miss USA contestants about teaching evolution in schools. For all the people who use the word "believe" in conjunction with "evolution."

The 4th of July

This has never been my favorite holiday. Maybe it was my dislike of large group picnics. I don't know. I know I have enjoyed some individual 4ths, but not all of them. Maybe it is because the dogs never enjoy the noise.

I remember the first summer we had Streak. Anglican's apartment had a great view of the fireworks, so we all went down there to watch, and I brought this little dog who had adopted us. He was so scared. He spent the entire fireworks with his head under my arm. Damn I miss him. I am watching my thumbnail grow out with a little sadness. He bit me during a treatment and the mark is just about gone. That has been a pretty steady reminder, though I know I don't need that to remember him. But it is still sad.

We have tried to rehabilitate this weekend, mostly by trying to spend it with friends. Last night we had a couple over and tonight we head to more friends. That will be good.

I think I have always struggled with the patriotism part. I get loving your country. I just am not sure what to think about people loving it in such an angry and hateful way. I read this week about a congressman from Georgia who said that he would do anything "short of shooting them" when he saw illegal immigrants. I suspect he sees himself as an uber patriot. As do most conservatives.

Yet, it makes me feel a little ill. And the conservative war on people continues. Minnesota has shut down state offices (non essential) primarily because Republicans refuse to raise taxes on anyone. That makes no sense to me, but those Republicans will tell me that they believe in freedom and that they are patriots.

And I read that across the country, not only are women seeing abortion outlawed, but states are starting to criminalize any kind of miscarriage. I get the opposition to abortion, but this is going a step beyond. And what amazes me about this kind of law, is that I am pretty sure that the upper middle class white wife will not have her miscarriage questioned. I am pretty confident of that. If that is small-government, then I have to just throw up my hands. That is fascism. That is what a totalitarian state does--not one that preaches freedom.

I do love this country. I refuse to wave a flag and won't put one up on the house. But I have deep respect for our country's history and actual freedoms. I still consider our constitution a brilliant document. I believe our system is amazing, and one way it has proven that is how much expansion and access we have added since the original document. I believe in what Herbert Croly called "the promise of American life." But I don't see it in conservative thought today. All I see is hate and bigotry and stupidity.

We can do better. On this 4th, I will remember my friend Streak, and I will think of all my friends and family around the country and here in town. I will think of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting for us, and for those others who have stood up for the least of these here at home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#whyaretherichtheonlyonesaskednottosacrifice?

Rick Perry calls us all to a Christian prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michele Bachmann is our Fundy Troll

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

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

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

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

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

Centro-matic "Iso-Residue"

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

God caught backing three different GOP candidates

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

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

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

Conservatives used to be rooted in reality

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is privatization the answer to our economic woes?

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

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

Ugh.

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

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

Why do Republicans only ask the poor to sacrifice?

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

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

Dogs and humans

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

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

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

But I still miss my friend.

On exceptionalism

A thoughtful post from Smitty on exceptionalism:

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

Pink is for Girls

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

Brewing Beer in Palestine

Total Buzz Kill

We love the Ten Commandments--but hate the foreigner

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

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

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