Strangely Blogged

Whitney Houston, RIP

2012-02-11T21:01:00.000-05:00

Fuck. At her best, her voice was a force of nature set to music, a church organ with a tornado behind it. Then there was fame, drugs, bad marriage, and sadly, the loss of some of that spine-tingling talent. Her life ended too damn soon.

I feel so sad about this, and what the media will probably make out of her death.

Santorum on Women Serving in the Military

2012-02-11T00:24:00.002-05:00

Now, you might have gotten the idea from this exchange that Rick Santoum thinks that women can't serve in the military because we think with our lady bits. But you would be wrong. He has since clarified that he's also concerned that male soldiers might think with their man-parts.

The Compromise

2012-02-10T23:19:00.001-05:00

When the early-morning word went out that President Obama would be making an adjustment to the decision that all employers provide health care coverage for birth control, I braced myself. It's the compromise...again, I told myself.

It's the kind of thing that gets called a "cave" or "backing down" or "throwing us under the bus" in some progressive circles. It's accepting less, when as progressives, we want to expect more from a president who should be on our side. It tries the patience of people who work hard for social justice and the recognition of individual rights to see anything that looks like walking away from our fight. In this case, the compromise was not entirely terrible--a change from the employers who particularly wanted a religious exemption being the ones paying for reproductive health coverage, to the insurance companies picking up the cost. Leaving aside issues of whether employers may somehow know what employees are getting that coverage (when due to HIPAA, the doctor's office should have a seal akin to that of the confessional), which could prejudice their employer, and some other details--this compromise is not bad. But I understand why many progressives hate this sort of thing, even while I understand why this kind of compromising has had to be the signature move of the Obama presidency--

Have you seen the Right Wing, lately, by any chance?

When I ask that question, I'm by no means trying to be derisive or condescending. I'm asking a serious question--look long and hard at how the hoarse cries of "Oh no, he's taking away our freedoms!" has been going on from even before he ever took office. They have treated this one particular liberal politician as if he were an alien, an invader, a monster. He's been accused by guns rights activists of trying to take away their guns by very cleverly not making any move to take their guns at all. He's been accused of being both a communist and a fascist. He's been accused of making a war against religion, even while mentioning God and his faith often in speeches and attending prayer breakfasts and the like. He has been greeted with disrespect from members of the opposition party, one of whom called him a liar during a State of the Union Speech, and another who waved an impatient digit in front of his face. He's been called a "Kenyan anti-colonialist". He's been made to produce his birth certificate. He's been accused of apologizing to the rest of the world, not loving or understanding America enough, of being a Muslim and an atheist--

And not any of it was warranted. Not any of it. It is all lying crap being thrown in his way to prevent him from doing his job effectively, and the people who are doing it have decided that their best game is to be unreasonable to try and bring him down. Make him wrestle with the pig. Make him get dirty. Make him be the angry radical they want to depict him as.

He's been called a lot of things, but President Barack Obama is not a stupid man. He knows what they want to see--and that's why you don't get a pulpit-pounding firebrand--even if that was something he wanted to be. Instead, we have an art of compromise which may be discomfiting, but I think it gets things done.

What seems to have happened this time is this: the right wing outrage machine cranks into full throttle--"We are all Catholics now!" "Next stop--the guillotine!" (Why not throwing Christians to the lions while we're at it?) And the opponents, such as the American Bishops, put out the word "There's no compromise with this guy". And then he lets them have it--with a reasonable compromise that reveals that they were the radicals all along. The pro-choice feminists were right all along--they really are after your right to birth control. In the meanwhile, activists who wanted to express themselves on both sides did so, and lots of information got disseminated. We know 98% of Catholic women have used birth control. and that most Americans, even most Catholics, are okay with the rule that employers should provide health care coverage that includes birth control. And predictably, the GOP tried to exert force through messaging--of course it's the right of religious people to limit the access of female-bodied people to reproductive health! How else would you know they're the boss of you? (I wonder how well that message is gonna work, say--in a general election, hm?)

It's akido. He uses the strength of the right wing outrage machine against itself, forcing it to chug even deeper into radical territory, while always seeming himself to be the reasonable guy. He's working smarter, not harder, to get things done. It sometimes looks like a tightrope act--but I appreciate what he's doing.

I also can appreciate the concerns of people who don't appreciate what he's doing. The price of his need to appear reasonable is that people feel like we're losing the voice of what could be a very strong advocate for progressive causes. I don't like that, in order to get this simple rule that means access to important medical care to so many female-bodied people, we have to except the frame that holds that anyone's religion should be privileged over our bodily autonomy. By accepting that frame, it's completely reasonable to assume that we will meet this same argument again on another issue and another, and that, because we've granted that view credibility, our case is harder to make. We've changed the view, but the "window" isn't moving.

Except, I think it does. And I think we have to accept that frame in part because, like it or not, it exists for the people we are having the dialogue with, whether it happens to be right or not--otherwise we are not talking to them, but at them or around them. The contrast between the right's prevarications and the facts start to stand out more with each battle as they become more desperate to wreck him, but it takes time to actually change minds. The fierce urgency of now can't wait for their minds to change--we couldn't wait for the end of racism for civil rights for African Americans, we can't wait for it to ensure equality for LGBT* people, and the female-bodied can't wait for the Holy See to see that birth control is not a grave sin--but simply medical care. And so--the compromise. How long? I want to say "not long". But I don't know.

I have hope, even if I think we've yet to see all the change we hoped for.

Wow. Some days I can not avoid ugly thoughts.

2012-02-10T19:54:00.000-05:00

I wrote about an ugly thought I had concerning Rick Santorum's odd assertions about the family; to wit:

It's weird how social conservatives sometimes have ideas that lead one to absurd places if drown out to a logical end. Over the course of this campaign, former Senator Rick Santorum has made two assertions that I've found personally appalling: the first one being that even a womaand a man in prison might be preferable as parents to a gay couple, and the second being that a woman who was impregnated through rape should just make the best of a bad situation.

Separately, those notions are nasty enough. Taken together, however, can one assume that Rick Santorum would find that a rape victim, her rapist, and the child of that rape, are a less-dysfunctional family unit than a family headed by a law-abiding, committed, consensual gay couple? And that, whether he's inside of prison or outside of prison, the child of such a union benefits from having a rapist father in his or her life?

As it occurs, George Will has written a column regarding the importance of fathers in influencing their children's lives. Here's a sample:

Born to an unmarried, mentally ill prostitute, he acquired his interest in driving from his grandfather, who would drive around the block with Sugar Bear in his lap. Not until Sugar Bear was 25 did he learn that his grandfather was his father, too, having had a sexual relationship with Sugar Bear’s mother.

(Snip)

This is the preoccupation of Ken Canfield, 58, a Kansas State Ph.D. who, until five years ago, headed the National Center for Fathering in Kansas City. He then moved here to help Pepperdine University develop a Center for the Family, and he now labors with World Impact living among the city’s most troubled people. Canfield acquainted Sugar Bear with Psalm 68, which speaks of God as “father of the fatherless” who “setteth the solitary in families.” For people like Sugar Bear, people with holes in their souls never filled by the love of fathers, Canfield says religion offers the “spiritualization of fatherhood”:
“If you don’t have the calm self-respect that a father gives, your passions go sideways. For a number of men, their passions become sexualized as they look for comfort and affirmation of their manhood.”

See what happened there? And yet, Sugar Bear's mother's life apparently did not lack from an impactful relationship with her father. Apparently. And yet she was, in Will's words, "an unmarried, mentally ill prostitute". It would make you wonder, if you weren't more inclined to realize that this means that the old man raped his daughter and she would have been, therefore, very unlikely to marry the father of her child, and that being raped by one's father probably does not contribute to a very healthy psyche.

And somehow, Sugar Bear's troubled life had to do with fatherlessness.

It isn't when I don't understand social conservatives that I feel angry--it's when I think I do.

It's not "Uter-YOU", it's "Uter-US"!

2012-02-10T00:36:00.001-05:00

Sexually-active female-bodied people recognize the importance of birth control and the role that it plays in family-planning, their own physical well-being, and their economic security, and support the provision that birth control be covered by insurance without co-pay. The celibate male-bodied Catholic Bishops think this is a terrible thing, and that their religious freedom extends to telling grown human beings what kind of medical care they can seek for their reproductive organs. The very idea of providing insurance that covers birth control makes them feel so, so....dirty.

The Catholic Church leadership is at the forefront of the argument that their non-church institutions shouldn't be "forced" to provide health insurance that covers birth control because of the aforementioned idea that this makes them feel complicit in their employees' non-reproductive sexy-times. As if they aren't already paying their employees in money, that is already being used for out-of-pocket birth control expenses, anyway. What are they going to do next--not pay their employees? You know, because the money can be used for "sin"?

They claim their problem has to do with "religious freedom". How is that?

They have the freedom to disapprove. They have the freedom to preach about how they'd rather people not use birth control. But I would have a real problem, as an employee, if my employer was going to make decisions for me that effected my access to reproductive health care. That doesn't sound like my freedom to make choices about my body are being respected. My choice to use birth control doesn't have any impact on the beliefs of any religious person whatsoever. They, however, want to exert a "right" that would interfere in how others carry out their lives. That doesn't strike me a real "right". Actually, that strikes me as a self-appointed privilege that undermines the bodily autonomy of others.

In other words--no. This rejection of a simple rule regarding coverage for people who may not even themselves have any belief that birth control is somehow sinful is overstepping the authority to simply practice one's religion, to imposing tenets of it on others. That's not okay. I hope this rule regarding birth control remains, because it is my belief that this is entirely a private matter for individuals and the medical counsel that they seek--not their employers, regardless of the religious status of that employer.

State Rep. Walsh makes great argument at Washington Marriage Equality Debate

2012-02-10T00:03:00.000-05:00

Everything she said was exactly right--but especially about the bond of marriage being more than about sex: I think some people get way too hung up on that part and miss that it's about love and making a life together in so many other ways, too. And the legislature of the state of Washington made the right choice for marriage equality.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez talks about the Food Stamp President--SNAP!

2012-02-09T23:53:00.001-05:00

This is a wonderful, factual rebuttal to former Speaker Gingrich's lazy dog-whistle about the so-called "Food Stamp President". It turns out, Obama is not the only president to care whether Americans were going hungry. No President should be "satisfied" with the idea of people going hungry in this country. Not all SNAP recipients (children and the elderly) can look for paychecks to sort out their needs. I think it's a pity that the GOP candidate choses to use poor people and their basic need to eat as a political statement in favor of callousness, and am glad that we have a history in this country of trying to meet the basic needs of our citizens--that is nothing to be ashamed of.

Oh, in stupid things of the week: Santorum Swept yesterday's non-binding business.

2012-02-08T23:57:00.002-05:00

I'm not entirely sure if this says more about Santorum, The Midwest, or Mitt Romney. There's a lot to unpack, but this graphic from ThinkProgress says quite a bit of it:

People in Romney's own party who even supported him last time around are less inclined to do so now. The more people know Romney, the less they seem to like him.

What to make of this? Well, for one thing, since yesterday's contests were for the most part for show, I wonder if the results were kind of for show as well, to demonstrate that social conservatism is alive and kicking and wants to be represented. On the other hand, the safest bet is: not romney not romney not romney was the rule of the day.

I really don't want to think that Santorum is a plausible GOP nominee, because low as my opinion is of the party right now, I can't believe anyone would think he's the best they could do. Here is a clip of him arguing with a parent about their child's medication. No one has ever stayed up at night because they were worried they couldn't afford an iPad. No one ever wondered if their kid would be okay on their own without an iPad. This blithering privileged boob just compared a schizophrenic young man's sanity and well-being to having a iPad! What the fuck? And here's another clip of Santorum pulling a factoid about euthanasia in the Netherlands out of his tight, sanctimonious ass (whilst also longing for the day when women had dangerous illegal abortions and died of sepsis and hemorrhage).

Honestly, GOP? Santorum? Everything he says is stupid and bad!

Ellen DeGeneres: My Haters are My Motivators

2012-02-08T23:38:00.000-05:00

I really love Ellen's response to the quest of the (Not Even Close to a) Million (Concern Troll) Moms to get JCPenney to dump her as their spokesperson. There is no "Gay or pro-gay" bandwagon, obviously: Ellen DeGeneres is not just a successful comedian and talk show host, but is already a spokesperson for Cover Girl makeup and American Express. People connect with who she is and respond to her self-effacing humor and ability to dance like there's no one else in the room even when everyone is. She makes sense as a spokesperson for any company not because of her identity as a gay woman, but because of who she is as a professional--you know, the way it should be.

That JCPenney is sticking with her is great--because haters should never prosper, but this also serves as a reminder that as yet, most gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the US don't have employment protections for gigs that are not as cool as making tv ads and magazine spots.

In 29 states, it’s still legal to fire

someone solely because they’re lesbian, gay, or bisexual; in 34 states it is legal to fire someone solely for being transgender.

It's always a good time to remember that there's more that can be done. But while I'm on it, props to Ellen for responding to her detrators with class. It's the bigots who set the actual bad example about how to be in this world.

Another Judge Says "No" to Prop 8

2012-02-07T23:08:00.000-05:00

This is pretty good news:

A federal appeals court Tuesday struck down California's ban on same-sex marriage, clearing the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage as early as next year.

The 2-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot measure that limited marriage to one man and one woman, violated the U.S. Constitution. The architects of Prop. 8 have vowed to appeal.

Quote from the court decision that best sums up gay marriage bans:

“Proposition 8 served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California,” the court said.

People who say denying marriage equality is about anything else know that sounds bad, but it happens to be the case.

Now they will be singing her song in Wingnut Valhalla.

2012-02-07T22:38:00.000-05:00

Karen Handel tendered her resignation from SGK today.

You can go to the link for her "it's not either all my fault and everybody is lying anyway" resignation letter. She won't be accepting a severance package because it would probably have come with the understanding that she not broadcast her tale far and wide.

So she totally will. After all, not just anyone tussles with the forces of Big Abortion, the Liberal Media, and the Feminazi Petitions of Personal Destruction and escapes without such tales....

Some of which may even be true!

Anti-choicers believe the silliest things--

2012-02-07T00:30:00.000-05:00

In utterly silly news from the forced-birth crowd, LA Rep. John Fleming (R-eally Gullible) was caught out actually briefly thinking that a months'old article from the satirical The Onion was an actual real thing in this world.

But on second thought, this isn't really all that silly. By which I mean--very real anti-choicers believe actual silly stuff about Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice movement all the time. I don't really understand why they do--but let's be straight about this: they totally do.

If we take a look at the Komenamerung saga, it turns out that some of the commenters about this issue and Planned Parenthood altogether believe in two seriously dumb hoax "investigations" from Lila Rose of Live Action. One has to do with mammograms--which only a couple of PP facilities can do, but which most have to refer out (but which always was stated in PP literature). The other has to do with a bizarre made-up underage sex-slavery scheme, which existed nowhere but in the odd anti-choice world of folks like Lila Rose. These Lila Rose-eries have been pimped by people like Abby Johnson, herself being kind of a walking anti-choicer stuntwoman.

But let's take a look at some tangential fictions, even: just recently, an OK State Senator put out a bill to try to stop use of fetuses as food. And even one GOP presidential hopeful is still convinced by the apocryphal link between abortion and breast cancer. It starts to appear that in the culture war, factual statements are the first casualty. When lies about abortion also involve threats of racial genocide and Social Security insolvency, for example, something has to give. And what should give is these liars--they should step aside, and let people look at the truth about reproductive health, and in fact, all health care in this society, especially for lower-income people. And they should look at what PP has really done to reduce abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies.

That is to say, if these people can handle the truth. If someone can gently and slowly explain it to them.

Half-time in America--

2012-02-05T23:41:00.000-05:00

This ad really captures the resiliency of the American spirit. I really think it does credit to those who believe this country's industries can succeed if we all pull together, and gives a rebuke to those who suggest they can't-- I actually got a little choked up, there.

Change Happened--

2012-02-04T23:46:00.001-05:00

A Brave Response to Susan G. Komen Re: Planned Parenthood--

2012-02-04T23:35:00.000-05:00

What Breast Cancer is and is Not.

Ma'am, my every respect. Physical realities aren't tied up in a pretty pink bow. The health of our bodies isn't a political issue, it is a right we all fight for. Our health isn't always pretty, our lives aren't perfect, but regardless of creed, we have a right to fight for them.

Not to shock anyone, but Ro'money won the Nevada Caucus--

2012-02-04T23:23:00.000-05:00

So, like he can party like it's 1988--and he's Dukakis.

Ron Paul might allow morning after injection for "honest rape".

2012-02-04T23:10:00.001-05:00

This is the sort of thing that makes me really question the pro-life view--it disappears the pregnant person from the equation. We look at how this person became pregnant, we judge whether this is a valid reason to abort. We look at how far along the fetus is, but not how far along the pregnant person is in accepting, understanding, and being able to deal with what has happened to hir. And where the "how" of a pregnancy becomes a topic for discussion, the idea of a pregnancy via rape become a question for speculation: Is it "rape-rape"? "Honest rape?" The serious, violent kind of course, with evidence of struggle and the attempt of a female-bodied person to protect her feminine virtue, of course. Because nothing less would do!

So, in order to be a good rape victim, our female-bodied person has to present themselves to the hospital and report their rape right away, no matter who their rapist is, or their relationship to that person. They need to be ready to file that police report no matter who that individual who raped them may be. They need to do it before they really know they are pregnant--and then. maybe they are okay.

Piers Morgan says, after posing this difficult question, that it's unlikely that a rape would happen to one of Ron Paul's daughters or granddaughters. Sexual assault affects one in six women. I wish it were more unlikely. But I also wish more people understood that there is no "perfect" rape or rape victim, and that regardless of the circumstances, a person has a right to caring treatment that respects hir dignity and puts hir first. Anti-choice people focus on the condition of the fetus--the condition of the pregnant person should come first. To ignore hir is simply misogyny.

Komen Chameleon

2012-02-03T18:27:00.000-05:00

Susan G. Komen for the Cure made an announcement that sort of sounded like a reversal today:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics - anyone's politics.
Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public's understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

Just a couple questions--what are they saying that they are doing differently, now? (Um, not much.) And is it enough? (I have my doubts.) What has transpired in the past few days has been a symphony of spin coming from SGK regarding why the partnership with Planned Parenthood was ending, starting from the originally stated policy of not partnering with institutions that were under investigation, which sounded pretty dodgy once it turned out that many of the institutions they dealt with were under some kind of investigation, to some confusing story about wanting to benefit direct providers of services and yadda yadda yadda-- grant excellence (?). And now the non-reversal-reversal, "We're sorry that our political decision to sandbag Planned Parenthood looked as political as it did--hopefully we will we do much better at not looking all political about it when we do something like it in the future."

Not yet known--the futures of the people who decided this was a good plan. The board of SGK needs a nice round of resignations for the sake of good will, I should think. Particularly Karen Handel, who seems to be an especially nasty bit of work.

Also, as for the reputation of SGK, this event has brought to light some criticisms about their methods that weren't very widely heard before. If they think the fallout is nearly over due to this latest bit of glurge, I would say, "Not hardly."

Some Reality Show Celebrity Endorses Mitt Romney, Gets Attention

2012-02-02T18:58:00.000-05:00

Obviously, we are all waiting with bated breath to see who The Donald was planning on endorsing when he made an announcement that he'd be announcing something today. The early rumors, apparently leaked from the Gingrich camp, had it that he was endorsing Gingrich, but no--he went with Romney. I'd say this probably has a lot to do with the high probability that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, thus ensuring the appearance that Trump can pick winners once they've become fairly evident.

One might question why all the importance given to this particular endorsement, and why the big show with the flags and reporters and all in announcing it--why, in the above picture, those two wacky kids look nearly life-like! Well, I think Romney decided to accept this honor in person instead of by way of a thank you note on the good stationery because Trump Will Not Be Ignored. Just recently, there was talk of Trump getting his financial house in order regarding a possible third party run. A perceived snub (following on the rejection of the Trump-hosted debate) might be just the thing that pushed the storied ego into the ring.

Or maybe Trump threatened to not just endorse him, but even do some campaigning for him.

Fresh off of winning the FL primary, Romney is...Not Concerned. Oh--about poors.

2012-02-01T21:48:00.000-05:00

If former MA Governor Mitt Romney was concerned about being a member of the 1% and how he might show a bit more of the common touch, he showed all too much of his usual cluelessness, saying he wasn't "concerned about the very poor".

Now, that might not be fair to him. Let's hear a bit more. What he actually said was:

ROMNEY: I’m not concerned with the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America. [..]

HOST: You just said said, ‘I’m not concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net.’ But I think there are a lot of very poor Americans who are struggling who would say, that sounds odd. [...]

ROMNEY: The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor. And there’s no question it’s not good being poor. And we have a safety net to help those that are very poor, but campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign — you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich, that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that’s not my focus.

"Because they don't even vote" he did not say, and "Because they wouldn't vote for me if they did", he also did not need to say.

Now, I think it's one thing for him to acknowledge that there's a "safety net" in this country that does help some of the people some of the time, but he seems clueless about the fact that it doesn't help everybody, and he doesn't acknowledge that his party has been cutting holes in the damn thing for people to fall through. (I'm in favor of a moderately springy social safety trampoline myself. You know, just so those who can do well, have the opportunity to "rise up", not just "land". The net's too low and not nearly taut enough for a good launch.)

He's also not that concerned about the very rich. As he has ample reason to know, they're doing A-ok.

Your pink ribbon swag won't get you into heaven, anymore.

2012-02-01T20:51:00.001-05:00

It really disappoints me that the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization has decided that concern-trolling about Planned Parenthood is more important than ensuring that many low-income women at risk for breast cancer get the early screening and detection that might make the difference between life and death for them. The organization, which raises money for and invests in health care research and awareness advocacy to fight breast cancer, has stopped grants to Planned Parenthood for breast-health services. The reason? A recently-adopted policy not to do business with organizations that are under investigation.

Likelihood that this policy was adopted because Planned Parenthood is under a politically-motivated investigation brought about by pressure from anti-abortion groups? Oh, about 100%. It doesn't hurt that Susan G. Komen for the Cure turns out to be a pretty conservative bunch, but all the same--I'm disappointed. It just seems to me that if a group is actually concerned with the health of women (or should that be, the female-bodied? Although, come to think of it, male-bodied people get breast cancer, too....), then that group should recognize the importance of patients having access to essential services wherever they can get them. Planned Parenthood is there for people who might not have insurance or a regular health-care provider. The people who lose out if Planned Parenthood can't provide these services might simply not have other options. SGK's concern about Planned Parenthood being under investigation strikes me as being misplaced.

So, I'm disappointed, but I can't say that I am surprised. Going back to Sen. Jon Kyl's infamous counter factual regarding what Planned Parenthood does, it's clear that the right wingers have the knives out for PP on the basis of 3% of their services, even in the face of all the other things they do, and in complete disregard for the fact that terminating unwanted or disastrous pregnancies is also a health service and the choice of the patients involved, which may be safer for them than childbirth. The anti-abortion side of the debate has a history of prevarication regarding the subject of pregnancy and abortion, including lying about the risk of depression and, yes, even the risk of breast cancer from abortion. To me, that kind of lie is a breach of trust that really makes me wonder if those people care about life--or are rather more concerned about controlling other people, since they are imperilling the life of the pregnant individuals they are counseling with, frankly, bullshit.

So, to sum up, I think this was a bullshit move on Susan G. Komen for the Cure's part. Already, there has been an increase of donations to Planned Parenthood by people who do care about Planned Parenthood's ability to provide their services to people who need them, and some people will be ending their donations to SGK and boycotting all that pink ribbon swag jazz, about 25% of the proceeds of which goes to the salaries of the trolls who made this decision. I'd say this is a better use of their money. Also, this definitely serves as a reminder for people to consider very closely the causes they support--not because they might be under some investigation, but because they might be run by people who don't put the mission first. Planned Parenthood does that. SGK just fell a little short.

As an addendum--some people who are giving to Planned Parenthood are chosing to make an honorary gift so that a card will be given to the recipient of one's chosing. In that way, one might make it out to the heads of SGK to let them understand that their move was pretty wrong-headed. Via Juanita Jean, you might want to honor:

Karen Handel
Senior VP of Fail
c/o Susan G. Komen Foundation
P.O. Box 650309
Dallas, TX 75265-0309

Forwarding a coat hanger on one's own is of course, optional. I'm more of a sternly-worded e-mail gal, myself.

In another time, I'd be calling this one of Romney's Finest Moments--

2012-01-30T23:26:00.001-05:00

A Rockefeller Republican works with a liberal lion to ensure universal health care for the citizens of his state, the People's Republic of Taxamachussets? I could get behind that. This is the sort of thing I wish we could get bipartisanship on more often. I think there's a lot to be said for smart managers who can get things done--that could have been Mitt Romney. But he wants to repeal Obamacare, he says, now that he's running for president, even though Obamacare is pretty much what he got for the state of Massachusetts. That said, I wonder how the GOP base feels about him doing the exactly best he could for MA. By which I mean socialism (why not?).

That's right, conservatives. I just endorsed Mitt Romney for your nominee. You have the official endorsement of a liberal queer-allied atheist. And yes, Sarah Palin is completely right--I really do not think Newt Gingrich would make a very good president AT ALL and would be VERY ANNOYED if he was the GOP pick. Take that to the bank and smoke it, why doncha.

It's the freakin' ice cream cone all over again.

2012-01-30T18:37:00.000-05:00

I'm a little surprised to be bringing up the subject of Grover Norquist's ice cream cone again, and yet this recent quote leaves me little choice:

NJ: What if the Democrats still have control? What’s your scenario then?
NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

Note that the trigger for the impeachment of President Obama would be allowing the tax cuts to expire, not any high crime or misdemeanor that the president might have committed. Charles Pierce points to the reality that for today's GOP, impeachment for simply being a Democratic president is not new, while Melissa McEwan reminds us that in reference to bipartisanship, the colorful (where "colorful" means "gross") analogy Norquist once used was "date rape". And yet I look at this idea that "expiration of tax cuts = impeachment", and all I see is "ice cream cone."

This is the tantrum of a child whose ice cream is is being eaten--or maybe someone has drunk his milkshake. It's the response of someone who thought the tax cuts should be forever! (Even though as voted on, we are already past the initial sunset date for them.) And of course, were the tax cuts to expire, it would not be Obama's decision alone--it would also be due to the actions of Congress, and also a result of the fact that the tax cuts became unpopular because they benefited the most wealthy among us, when we as a nation could afford it least. For a man whose main goals seem to be "tax cuts FOREVVVARRR!!!" an "naming stuff after Ronald Reagan", this must very nearly resemble the infant outrage he experienced when his father first bit that ice cream cone. To put it in nearly Freudian terms, President Obama becomes a stand-in for the bad Daddy government.

Or something like that. Just throwing it out there.

Herman Cain Endorses Newt Gingrich for President

2012-01-28T22:36:00.000-05:00

You knew, I knew, we all knew it was meant to be.

"I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for president of the United States," Cain said, after appearing as a "surprise guest" at a Lincoln Day Dinner held by the Palm Beach County Republican Party.

"There are several reasons, many reasons, as to why I have reached this public decision. I had it in my heart and mind a long time ago," Cain said. "I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot, Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas."

"And I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president, and going through this sausage grinder -- I know what this sausage grinder is all about," Cain said, because "he cares about the future of the United States of America. We all do."

I don't know if this will give Gingrich a boost in Florida, where Romney is apparently ahead. I just wanted the chance to use that graphic again. Also, heh heh heh, he said "sausage".

Sometimes an Ugly Thought Comes to Mind

2012-01-28T22:22:00.000-05:00

It's weird how social conservatives sometimes have ideas that lead one to absurd places if drown out to a logical end. Over the course of this campaign, former Senator Rick Santorum has made two assertions that I've found personally appalling: the first one being that even a woman and a man in prison might be preferable as parents to a gay couple, and the second being that a woman who was impregnated through rape should just make the best of a bad situation.

Separately, those notions are nasty enough. Taken together, however, can one assume that Rick Santorum would find that a rape victim, her rapist, and the child of that rape, are a less-dysfunctional family unit than a family headed by a law-abiding, committed, consensual gay couple? And that, whether he's inside of prison or outside of prison, the child of such a union benefits from having a rapist father in his or her life?

Just silly old things I wonder about. I sure wouldn't mind if the former Senator clarified that a bit, though.

Charles Murray has Discovered White People are Not a Monolith, Laments.

2012-01-27T20:57:00.003-05:00

I am probably going to my library to read this one for teh lulz; the author, Charles Murray, who with Richard J. Herrnstein wrote the notorious The Bell Curve, has written a book on the startling notion that there is a difference between white people of different classes.

The rich, they're different. Whodathunk?

Anywhoo, I found out about this thing of brilliance and scholastic achievement from both Roy Edroso and Erik Loomis today, and I am already astonished that this is where The Bell Curve's author wound up. Would working class whites like myself be better behaved if we spoke the same language as rich schmucks like Mitt Romney? Okay, player, you've got me. Or wait, is he saying they should learn how to talk down to us? Huh! Let me pause and reflect on that. If my betters, like George Herbert Walker Bush could only pretend to like pork rinds, or if his scion, could only be NASCAR-compatible, wouldn't we all get off the meth and lead more productive lives?

Um, no? But since I haven't read this, and all I really have is some of his recent dumbfuckery, let's look at some of that:

We are watching the maturation of the cognitive stratification that Richard J. Herrnstein and I described in "The Bell Curve" back in 1994. When educational and professional opportunities first opened up, we saw social churning galore, as youngsters benefited from opportunities that their parents had been denied. But that phase lasted only a generation or two, slowed by this inescapable paradox:

The more efficiently a society identifies the most able young people of both sexes, sends them to the best colleges, unleashes them into an economy that is tailor-made for people with their abilities and lets proximity take its course, the sooner a New Elite -- the "cognitive elite" that Herrnstein and I described -- becomes a class unto itself. It is by no means a closed club, as Barack Obama's example proves. But the credentials for admission are increasingly held by the children of those who are already members. An elite that passes only money to the next generation is evanescent ("Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations," as the adage has it). An elite that also passes on ability is more tenacious, and the chasm between it and the rest of society widens.

Oh fuck. He discovered the 1%, and now thinks they're a bloody meritocracy just because they've figured out the secret handshake.

With geographical clustering goes cultural clustering. Get into a conversation about television with members of the New Elite, and they can probably talk about a few trendy shows -- "Mad Men" now, "The Sopranos" a few years ago. But they haven't any idea who replaced Bob Barker on "The Price Is Right." They know who Oprah is, but they've never watched one of her shows from beginning to end.

Talk to them about sports, and you may get an animated discussion of yoga, pilates, skiing or mountain biking, but they are unlikely to know who Jimmie Johnson is (the really famous Jimmie Johnson, not the former Dallas Cowboys coach), and the acronym MMA means nothing to them.

They can talk about books endlessly, but they've never read a "Left Behind" novel (65 million copies sold) or a Harlequin romance (part of a genre with a core readership of 29 million Americans).

These are generalizations that have nothing to do with anything. They might even be more about a Red state-Blue state divide. What is he even on about? And no, the Dallas Cowboys coach is the more famous Jimmie Johnson--what the fuck? But if one is a Blue State person--not an elite, but middle class, one will have a slightly more "elitist" taste. Basically, he's patronizing the Tea Party folks. Or what he thinks they are.

It's a bit arbitrary, as generalizations tend to be.

The real story: socioeconomic issues affect the whole culture differently at different strata. If we experience a situation where the middle class is sinking, the nouveax pauvres are going to show some of the stereotypical lower-class features regarding attitudes towards marriage and reproduction due to issues of access to birth control, and relative financial readiness to marry (after all, when you marry someone, you're also kind of marrying their credit rating, crass as that may be). All of which has nothing to do with anyone's familiarity with popular cinema or what radio station they listen to. It has more to do with being the class one is.

Um, they call it socioeconomics because...? Also, he's assuming popular culture figures aren't elites. Left Behind author Tim LaHaye is a kind of elite. Pat Robertson has a media empire--he's an elite. Branson, Mo. is full of CMA winners who are elites. Elite is as elite does. If one makes a lot of money for stuff they're talented at? I think success and fame are a form of elitism. They got juice. They influence others.

But this branding, whether we talk about it in red/blue state terms or class terms, doesn't have the force of practical realities. If Professor Murray is concerned about working class white declines in marriage and out-of wedlock reproduction, he could look at the practical realities of those people. If a young white girl in, say, South Dakota has an out of wedlock child, look at her education about and access to birth control, including her options regarding abortion. Look at her and her partner's education about and access to jobs in that area. And don't even start about whether they followed fucking NASCAR. Seriously. Look at them, then look at yourself, then die in a fire, then stop writing stupid books about culture when you don't get it.

Ron Paul, Racist Crap and the Pointlessness of the Protest Vote

2012-01-27T19:23:00.001-05:00

It turns out that it's been corroborated: Ron Paul did proof and sign off on the racist nonsense that was in the newsletters that went out under his name. Dave Weigel points out that Paul supporters don't seem to know or care, mostly because Paul is a protest vote.

I think this might explain a lot of the "yeah but he's against the drug war" arguments, which seem to rest hopes on the idea that if you cast a protest vote, somehow your protest will register and people will know what you meant.

I don't understand this thinking. There's no logical reason a vote for Ron Paul will be assumed to be a vote against foreign escapades, or against the racist drug war. For all anyone knows, it could mean you really, really grok von Hayek or think the gold standard makes sense, or, I don't know know, just agree with Rand Paul, and for that matter, me, that the TSA has no business touching your junk. It seems sort of like passive-aggressive voting, in a way. The Field of Candidates: "But what did we do?" Angry Voter: "Oooohhhh, YOU KNOW!"

But the answer is really: they don't know. The message voting is supposed to send is: this is the person I think would best fill the job I'm voting them in for, out of all the people whose names I could have gone for. So when a certain number of votes gets cast for a Ron Paul, there just isn't any way to tell if you identify with Stormfront or NORML. We have to guess that any or all of his ideas are legitimized to an extent. And that will include that really cheap, crappy, "profiting from racism and homophobia" stuff.

Sigh; but that's just my opinion. You all just do what you're going to do. It's a free country.

Florida Debate--I think I'm starting to hallucinate things.

2012-01-27T00:04:00.000-05:00

At some point, it felt like they were all going on about a lunar colony, which would be totally cool, you guys, and then some lady asked about health care, and these guys were all like "Is that a real thing?" Surely that can't be right, and yet, it feels accurate.

Also, Mitt Romney is very rich. Newt Gingrich must have left something of his back in South Carolina. Ron Paul is a healthy specimin, and Rick Santorum is a doofus. I think Romney technically won this one.

If anyone can be said to win anything from these things....

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Presented her Letter of Resignation Today

2012-01-25T21:37:00.000-05:00

Although I do hope that this resignation represents just a break in her service to her country, I can't help but think back to the early reports from the day of that attack and the erroneous report that she had been killed--it is amazing that she is still with us, and a testament to the medical care that she has received and her own efforts to recover.

That said, I also reflect on the political climate that was in part attributed as a cause in the brutal events of that day. It is true that the person who enacted that day of terror, Jared Lee Loughner, is by no means a healthy person. But I also suspect that there's something about our political culture that is not healthy either, and it asserts itself in ways that are threatening:

JEFFERSON CITY — Orange stickers with an image of rifle cross hairs were found yesterday on the office nameplates of several Democratic state senators, prompting an investigation by Missouri Capitol Police, Senate Administrator Jim Howerton said.

“We are taking all the precautions we can,” Howerton said.

One similar sticker was found on the nameplate outside the door of state Rep. Scott Dieckhaus, R-Washington. He was the only Republican and the only House member who found one of the stickers.

The stickers were near the doors of all four Democratic women in the Senate — Jolie Justus and Kiki Curls, both of Kansas City, and Maria Chapelle-Nadal and Robin Wright-Jones, both of St. Louis. A sticker also was found near the door of Sen. Victor Callahan, D-Kansas City and the Democrats’ floor leader.

and even vicious:

CBS News) An Arkansas political campaign manager was shocked to discover his family pet with one side of its head bashed in -- and the word "liberal" scribbled across the corpse in paint.

Jacob Burris has served as Ken Aden's campaign manager since October 2011. Aden, a Democrat, is currently running for Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District.

"To kill a child's pet is just unconscionable," Aden said in an official statement. "As a former combat soldier, I've seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity. Whoever did this is definitely part of the worst of humanity."

I am proud of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords for her struggle to get well, her return to the House last year to cast a vote regarding the debt ceiling, her hard, but correct decision now to concentrate on her own self-care so that she can be a better public servant another day, but I also worry about others who might someday face a similar tragedy because all too often, the language that gets used regarding politics turns to the apocalyptic and martial. It's too easy at times to substitute the idea of "enemy" for "opponent". And yet, as we saw in that clip--the touching, human, bittersweet sadness of seeing a colleague whose career has been interrupted so violently, is shared across the aisles. It's not a war in there or any political assembly--it's just human beings of differing opinions, mostly trying to figure out the ways to do what's best for their constituents. I don't think that should be forgotten, and I wouldn't mind it if more leadership was shown in the area of speaking to reason--not raw emotion, anger, and fear. Our dialog has to be about meaning, not mayhem, or democracy can't work as it should. We would just have power vs power, trick vs dirty trick--and the reasons, the personal issues, or as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz alluded--"family and friends are everything"--well, that gets lost. And we get bad legislation and we live with it because the good politicians are scared.

I'd rather we fought as brothers and sisters and talked like reasonable people. And those who would try and introduce terror to our democracy--can go and do some very complex and obscene thing with themselves. But they really should leave our democracy alone.

The State of the Union Address--I thought it was pretty good.

2012-01-24T23:21:00.000-05:00

I really have to say this--watching the State of the Union was like the antidote to the primary debates I've been watching lately. I couldn't even start to blog about the debate last night, because I bailed to look for show tunes on YouTube. (We all have hobbies, and I'm an ex-Choir Geek.) This address was an excellent reminder of not just why I would vote against any of these GOP candidates, but why I'd vote for Barack Obama once again.

Of note, I think his strongest points of the evening were the policy points he made about correcting the tax code to stop rewarding companies for off shoring jobs and making the individual income tax code fairer for earners at all levels. Also, the points about reforming our financial industry and ending the grave moral hazard of bailouts show that he really is listening to the people, because these issues are dear to Tea Partiers and Occupy Movement people alike. I liked much of what he had to say about education--although the part about drop-outs was a head-scratcher: sometimes life events simply make it impossible for someone to continue in school, sometimes temporarily, but dropping out of high school isn't a choice students make in a vacuum. There are often social and economic motivators for dropping out that need to be considered--I'm just not 100% with that. (I'm thinking of bullying, teen pregnancy, familial hardships--there has to be a game plan to support these youngsters.)

Obama also showed, pretty effectively, I think, that he's ready to answer to the criticisms that his possible election opponents have been launching at him. He very definitely made clear that he is not standing in the way of various forms of energy development, touting the expansion of oil drilling and his intent to open up resources for more exploration, as well as support for shale natural gas exploitation--as long as it can be done transparently, safely and cleanly. In the meanwhile, his rhetoric on energy policy did not back down from a commitment to renewable, locally-sourced energy investment--that's the kind of innovation I'm glad hes supporting, and serves as, IMHO, a good enough answer to "Solyndra?" As in "So? Jobs." He tied most policies back to how they would affect the average American and/or create jobs pretty well. Also, he pointed out that his administration has not been the originator of so-called "job-killing regulations", but clarified that some regulation that protect consumers and the environment are necessary, while stupid regs are stupid--very on-point and true. His discussion of the rebound experienced by the US auto industry gave him a nice opportunity to slam Mitt Romney without naming him--there's certainly one notable person who said that Detroit should be allowed to fail!

But I think his foreign policy--insofar as he has experienced some admirable successes in that department, were his best selling-points. He did end the war in Iraq (well, he withdrew troops according to plan, but he DID IT, OK?) And also, Bin Laden--dead. Gaddafi--dead. But even though his vocal support for Israel, his support also for the sanctions against Iran, and his warning to Syria's Al-Assad were all signals of his leadership and positive involvement, his language definitely echoed the "American Exceptionalism" the pundits look for, even if he did not use quite those words.

What he did say was:

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

In other words, whenever any country in the world wants to borrow a cup of awesome sauce, they see us first. Suck it, Romney--no apologies!

Ahem. Anyway, I though it was a clear picture of what Obama has done and still means to accomplish. The focus was on jobs and how we can continue to build this country, together, with teamwork and setting aside differences. I thought it was all in all a pretty good message. Also, Messrs Boehner and Cantor on the video of the speech at times looked like they would go sick. Well done, Mr. President. Very well done!

Wow. Another state, another winner.

2012-01-21T21:43:00.001-05:00

So, it turns out that Rick Santorum actually won Iowa, Romney did win New Hampshire, and now Newt Gingrich has decidedly won South Carolina.

That would be two so far that the expected, inevitable Mitt Romney hasn't won. I covered the possibility that Romney might not be so inevitable as even I thought here, but I think it's worth revisiting how a Gingrich win will effect the GOP--

I don't think it's good for them.

In a way, I kind of welcome the idea of Newt Gingrich facing Barack Obama. There might be a desire for the hardcore right to see a culture warrior smear Obama about his Alinsky tactics and food stamp presidency; they might yearn to see someone paint the president of the United States as an Other and an alien, maintaining that he's both a Kenyan anti-colonialist and a Euro-centric socialist, or whatever string of ultimately meaningless adjectives and nouns the 1990's counter-culturalist bomb-thrower wants to paint my president as.

I said "counter-culturalist". I mean it. He derides the values of LGBT and secularist Americans--I say we are fast becoming mainstream not because we are at war with American values, but because we appreciate the freedoms they represent and will defend them against demagogues like him until our dying breaths. He launches what an earlier day in journalism might have called "dog-whistles" of race-baiting--today we would call them "air-raid sirens" of shrill racialist nonsense. When he talks about my president as a "food stamp president", he is dealing with a kind of fire that might sting people who are expecting it, but will blow back on himself with a righteous fury.

Look at this shit, here:

This is some monstrous racist bullshit from the first days of Barack Obama's presidency. It isn't like we don't know what this puffed-up pompous grandiose douche, Newt Gingrich, is saying. We know, and by now, we know it's wrong. We know what he's doing when he uses this tactic against President Obama, and we know what he's doing when he denies it and smears an honest questioner of his tactics like Juan Williams in similar fashion.

But let's be clear--even if Gingrich isn't intending this only as a racist hook, he's still wrong in every possible way--food stamp beneficiaries right now are nearly half children and about a quarter elderly, and a good number of the remainder are students. And besides that, unless he can just hire a mess of people with government jobs (as if!) what does he want to be in the meanwhile--the Starvation President? Seriously, fuck off with that nonsense.

Clearly, Newt Gingrich would be divisive as a candidate because he only sees demographics, and has always been willing to smear minorities on the off-chance it would gain majority support. He did it re: Prop 8, and he's done it with Muslims regarding the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" and the threat of sharia. I just don't see how this can work today, and I am willing to bet it won't.

Gingrich very well might win the nomination, but I believe that if he does, he will have done and said enough to discredit his party for a long time to come.

If I didn't say that was change I could believe in, I'd be lying.

Good God, you're coming up with reasons; good god, you're dragging it out.

2012-01-19T23:47:00.002-05:00

The debate was pretty much the Gingrich and Santorum show, I thought. Gingrich blamed the media for his being kind of a lech, which I thought was impressive. Santorum was kind of like one of those small dogs who decided this is not your ankle's lucky day, and he went after Gingrich a bit, but the thing that's bothering me is Romney and the tax returns.

The longer he holds out on the returns, the bigger a deal it looks like. He's saying he'll release the 2010 one. That's it.

Get real. One return isn't what the people want. They want to pore over the paperwork and see what that kind of money looks like. There's only one cure for curiosity. You give them what they want--and get it over with. If Gingrich can just go around with his dirty laundry hanging out, what the hell is in those tax returns that Romney can't release them? The longer he doesn't, the longer people are going to ask.

I'm not saying there must be something in there--but damn, either he's got something he thinks he needs to hide, or his staff has not sense of the optics of the thing. It's just painful watching a manageable issue get turned into something. (Which is especially so after this guy has been running for POTUS for five years--he didn't know this would come up?)

Rick Perry has left the race.

2012-01-19T23:15:00.000-05:00

Alas, poor Perry--we knew him, Texans!
Never more will he derp such derptastic doltitudes,
as dawdled forth from those slack jaws
and mouth-breathing lips. He is gone,
Back to Texas (You poor bastids)
And will not befuddle our ears more
with talk of Turkey, or justices eight, or
that other thing, whatever it was....oops.

It was Santorum.

2012-01-19T07:25:00.000-05:00

Rick Santorum actually beat Mitt Romney in Iowa by 34 votes.

That Santorum-mentum was apparently a real thing--maybe this news, combined with the news that one of Newt Gingrich's exes has just given ABC a possibly devastating interview, will make things interesting--

Or not.

Walker Recall Drive Gets Over One Million Signatures

2012-01-18T23:25:00.000-05:00

The peteitions have finally been rounded up and submitted in the bid to recall Scott Walker (R-etrograde corporatist lackey), and the total is mighty impressive: the figure is said to be over a million, already pre-sorted for duplicates and general fuckery. This is large compared to the original vote.

This is a pretty big deal. What it demonstrates is that grass-roots support and organization can pull off big things. What it should also suggest is that outside big money still doesn't take the place of bodies--maybe Walker can raise some big money--but will it translate to votes? Also important, will signatures translate to votes against?

We will have to see. But this has been a very promising sign about what regular people can accomplish regarding their representation when they feel it has not been truly representative. And also, this is an example that might be followed in other states--some may work their own recall processes; some states may be encouraged to try to legislate such a process. And I think this is a good thing. If a candidate isn't what you expected once they get in office, maybe it is a good plan that they be "returned" for a better exchange. If you can do it with shoes--why not with a governor?

This Post Intentionally (Almost) Blank to Oppose SOPA/PIPA

2012-01-18T18:15:00.000-05:00

0

1

This is a demonstration of what we'd be looking forward to if the SOPA/PIPA Internet blacklist bills go into effect. For a pretty good explanation that even a layperson can dig, see here. To use my "effective propaganda voice": These bills are heavy-handed special-interest bills that violate our freedoms and will kill jobs (for real!). Also, they wouldn't necessarily have any real impact on piracy, but could have a real negative effect on web security. I'm not blacking out my blog today (um, would anyone notice?) or witholding my bloggy productivity, but I am pointing the way to EFF.org for more information and a petition you can use to contact your congresscritters.

Shut up! I paid attention to this Debate in the South on Fox News This One Time, and I Weren't Nearly as Drank as What I Needed To Be!

2012-01-16T23:41:00.000-05:00

Okay, one of the things I need to point out about the debate I just half-assed paid attention to whilst watching other shit on tv and following Twitter and drinking some beer and putting some sheets in the wash is that Rick Perry really does think that the fellows who peed on some dead Taliban were just boys being boys. I guess Rick Perry was a boy once, and young. Unfortunately, I can't actually vouch for his ever having grown up. I want a grown-up as president, and luckily, I think we have a grown-up as president in Barack Obama. He isn't disappointed in these young men in order to show "disdain" for the military. He's actually appreciative of all the military does, and what can be actually undone by a moment of dumbfuckery. Also, desecrating corpses really is against military law. I don't know why Rick Perry doesn't understand this.

But we don't actually worry about Rick Perry becoming POTUS at this point, do we? Oh, no.

Let's talk about Mitt Romney. I don't think he was expecting to still have to debate tonight. Let's look at this clip with Santorum going after him about of all things, voting rights for ex-cons.

I don't know if the endorsement by those 150 evangelicals or whatever gave Santorum extra confidence, but he was kind of on the right side of the question (what?) and took it to Romney. I don't care for Rick Santorum because he's basically a virulent homophobe and a religiously-foolish misogynist, and also I'm still working out where he stands on "Blah" people, because I've always focused on the first two issues and never noticed the casual race bigotry he evokes that much before, but in at least that instance, he made Romney look like a clueless boob.

Um, and the last thing I have to say is: Newt Gingrich is a major jackass. His nonsense about Obama as Food-stamp President and his nonsense about child labor might get some claps from hard-core fans and bigots, but the long-term problems regarding poverty in the US as involves food scarcity ends up coming down to the following:

Does Newt Gingrich think that if the economy collapsed, Barack Obama shouldn't need to or want to see to it we had our fellow Americans FED? Wouldn't Newt prefer even our poorest people were at least fed, if we had the resources to feed our hungry countrymen? And doesn't he understand why children are treated different than adults? That they have a certain right to preferential treatment because they are the future and insisting that they pay for the privileges of their education is so much fuckery?

Meh--so glad I was mostly washing sheets and drinking. Else I might have developed a much greater dislike for these handful of remaining GOP candidates than I already have from the preceding eleventy-billion debates.

Did I mention I can not stand these people anymore? Because that is important. I can't.

The Value of Huntsman's Endorsement--

2012-01-16T16:33:00.000-05:00

comedy, I guess. This is from the DNC:

For what it's worth, Romney's campaign is down-playing it, too.

I know this is a late tackle since he already took the knee, but Huntsman's bowing-out speech was about divisiveness and toxicity. It is just a damn shame politics has to be that way. I also note he talked about the ability of people to trust our elected officials. So here's a question--anyone especially trust this guy for 2016?

What Would MLK Do?

2012-01-16T13:57:00.001-05:00

Huntsman to Drop Out; Will Back "Unelectable" Mitt Romney

2012-01-15T23:31:00.000-05:00

Sadly, Jon Huntsman is going to mothball his campaign (possibly to shake it out again sometime in 2015) before we even get to see if he ends up doing better with a serious campaign in SC than Stephen Colbert campaigning on a lark. He'll also be endorsing Mitt Romney, who he just recently criticized as making himself "unelectable" with his recent "I like to fire people"comments. He also called Romney "out of touch" and took personally criticisms Romney made regarding Huntsman's own diplomatic service. He also had some pretty harsh anti-Romney ads, but the videos have been made private.

So, uh, that's the kind of support Romney could probably really appreciate.

He'll be sort of missed.

Profiles in Theocracy: Touched by an "Angle"

2012-01-15T00:57:00.001-05:00

Rick Santorum, "Jesus Candidate", was endorsed by 150 prominent evangelical leaders today , including hate group leader Tony Perkins. I don't know who all else comprised the 150 Evangelicals, but I imagine this endorsement comes as something of a surprise to TX Gov. Rick Perry, to whom many things probably come as a surprise. After his "Response" shindig last August, I had figured he sewed up the Evangelical support, and I think he might have been counting on that, too. As yet, Perry hasn't gotten much in the way of religious endorsements, but Newt Gingrich has--in the form of Tim LaHaye, a fellow speculative fiction author, and the ghost of Jerry Falwell.

The endorsement of any candidate by religious figures or groups strikes me as a quaint situation that doesn't exactly mesh with the spirit of church/state separation. The leaders and groups aren't necessarily promoting a given candidate from the pulpit per se, but when a candidate gets such an endorsement, it's kind of hard to read it as other than, "We think this candidate is more reflective of our church's values." It can be presumed then, that the endorsement carries the promise of votes by co-religionists. So GOP hopefuls go after those endorsements, which seems to imbue the religious wing of the right with even more influence. It's like a positive feedback loop. The religious right has influence, so they are courted, so they have more influence, and so on. But also, an endorsement by some of these figures can also be problematic--John McCain experienced both sides of this issue, first, by rejecting the religious right with his "agents of intolerance" comments in 2000, and then in having in 2008 to renounce the endorsements of Revs. John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

I don't know if Rick Santorum will be overmuch impressed-upon to renounce the endorsement of the Family Research Council or any similar organizations who are likely to throw in with him due to his long-standing opposition to LGBT* issues. For what it's worth, whether he accepts such an endorsement or not, I think people who follow LGBT* rights know enough about his record to know not to support him--but it strikes me as curious that to this day, the FRC or the Family Leader or Focus on the Family or any of the little religious right organizations that have turned "family" into a suspect word when used in the name of any institution, might be seen as a valuable endorsement, when in their way, they are as much institutions of bigotry as, say, CCC or Stormfront.

And the reason they still have any real influence would likely be religion--thus, the people who to this day maintain that allowing marriage equality to all, or even granting to all just the simple day-to-day courtesy of not being bullied or threatened with violence and slurs, is viewed by some as a curtailment of the religious freedoms of bigots. Because they are bigots who vote and donate money to candidates. And that is seen as enough to tolerate their intolerance--and to even welcome it.

I think it would be very positive if the endorsement of, say, a Tony Perkins, poisoned the view the majority of people had of a particular candidate. Then again, I think it would be great if people simply saw a candidate like Santorum as unelectable in the first place due to his extreme views and his ridiculous-sounding justifications for them, without needing an endorsement of anyone else to cement that view.

But right now--the Evangelicals looked at superannuated altar boy Rick Santorum, homophobic See'N'Say and unGoogleable sweater-vest afficionado, and saw a viable candidate with which to rest their hopes. Their theocratic and homophobic hopes. And in return, perhaps he will be just a little more viable for a few primary contests more.

They will still have to vote for a Mormon in the general though.

Suckers.

Overturn "Citizens United"--Make this Viral...

2012-01-13T12:05:00.002-05:00

More info here.

How Bullshit is Everything--Luntz on Defending Capitalism: "Don't"

2012-01-13T00:06:00.002-05:00

What with the Occupy "scaring him to death" and the assault on "vulture capitalism" coming from Gingrich and Perry regarding Mitt Romney's Bain history--is "capitalism" going to be a dirty word to conservatives according to Frank Luntz?

Hear what he's saying at this point:

Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word "capitalism" was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit. We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they’re trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support

We have always been at war with capitalism. We just want to be free to profit off of anything ever.

I'm not sure how well this will work. The argument isn't against capitalism per se, just certain egregious practices that result in people not, for example, getting a fair day's wage for a full day's work, or for the value of workers being so discounted that they are considered disposable, as well as the communities in which they live, or where businesses used to be an anchor for jobs and economic security but no longer have any ties to the community and are flight risks. Working people like profitable businesses and we like the jobs they make--we don't like when they are off-shored leaving us and our communities high and dry.

I don't think that needs spin--just the truth. But in Luntz-land, we can't handle the truth.

Know Your Class War: They Don't Want you to Vote

2012-01-12T23:26:00.001-05:00

Today's lesson is brought to us by Lousekateer Jimmy O'Keefe ("T-R-I: I don't think that's journalism. C-K-Y: Why? Because he cheats! L-o-u-s-e!), who reminds us that there is a lot at stake in folks actually not being able to vote, by pretend-perpetrating some voter-fraud.

Now, "voter-fraud" is a big-deal to Right-Wingers. It doesn't actually happen to any significant degree, and for what it's worth, it would actually have to happen to a significant degree to actually effect an election. But RW-ers use the spectre of, for example, dead folks voting because live people are walking into polling places using their names, to disenfranchise live people with unfair voter ID laws. These laws place a burden specifically on people who are old, poor, people of color--in other words, they tend to disenfranchise disadvantaged populations, by making them pay fees to acquire the necessary paperwork to prove they are who they say they are (even if they have voted for many years and are well-known at their polling places) .

Also, votes can be stripped by excluding legitimate voters by invalidating them with false information. This sort of thing happens to far higher numbers of votes than "voter fraud" could account for.

Voter ID laws have a lot of heavyweight proponents, like Hans von Spakovsky, who was appointed to the FEC by President George W Bush.

It's important to keep in mind the distinction between voter fraud and election fraud. Voter fraud, which hardly exists, might net a handful of votes one way of another. Election/electoral fraud involves the whole process of an election being interfered with: Which one do you think is more dangerous? Which one do you think is more likely to support the Powers That Be, and helps them keep being?

You Haters Just Don't "Get" Ro'Money

2012-01-12T21:32:00.000-05:00

I've been pondering the interview Mitt Romney gave Matt Lauer yesterday and the whole "envy" issue. Here's what he said:

MATT LAUER: When you said that we already have a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy, I'm curious about the word envy. Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?

ROMNEY: You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent versus one percent, and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent, you have opened up a wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God. The American people, I believe in the final analysis, will reject it.

LAUER: Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?

ROMNEY: I think it’s fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms and discussions about tax policy and the like. But the president has made it part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach and I think it will fail.

I'm nothing if not fair. It is certainly not Gov. Romney's fault if he was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth, and you know what? Mitt Romney gets a lot of flack for this kind of "empathy gap"--but he knows that losing jobs is a tragedy. Can he help it if he's the Sophocles of job loss? He likes firing people. How often do people get the opportunity to do something they like and make a butt-load of money at it?

Okay, maybe that wasn't all that convincing. Why don't I give the defense over to Mike Huckabee (who my internal polls via the services of Me, Myself and I Ltd are running at 2;1 over T-Paw for the running mate gig, now)? Gov. Huckabee?

Romney has come under a lot of fire for Bain Capital’s investments in some companies that were then scaled down with layoffs to become profitable. That’s been demonized thoroughly by the media as corporate raiding, But it’s surprising to see so many Republicans embrace that leftwing argument against capitalism. It’s terrible for the workers who lose their jobs, and nobody likes to see viable companies looted and destroyed. But if downsizing can turn around a failing company, then at least it prevents all the jobs from being lost, and it sets up a stronger company that can grow and start rehiring. The term for this among people who aren’t hostile to capitalism is “creative destruction.” Bad companies have to die to make way for stronger companies, in the same way that old trees fall over to make way for new trees. The other alternative, the Obama way, is to use vast amounts of taxpayer money to prop up companies that are failing in the marketplace. Sometimes, with a big enough cash transfusion, they survive, like GM. Other times, all the money in the world can’t stop them from going belly-up and losing all their jobs, like Solyndra. But at least when a company that’s bought out by investors goes bankrupt, the money that’s lost was voluntarily invested, not taken from taxpayers at gunpoint.

Well, I guess "bad companies" are like trees falling over....you know, if you don't think about what it's like to be a squirrel on that tree, or that some company trees sort of get violently chopped down in their prime because they are the ones with the useful wood you can sell off and....Gov Huckabee? (Aw shucks, I guess I lost him at "squirrel".)

What I'm trying to ask is, is it fair to criticize Romney just because the principal conceit of his platform is that he can create jobs when as a businessman, we can't ascertain that he ever created that many ("net-net"--which doesn't mean, I think, what Romney thinks it means) or because Massachussetts didn't really explode with job-creation when he was governor.? Or would that be small and envious? Criticize him if you must, but speak softly, love.

Oh, hell. I think it's mandatory that his claims are duly inspected and critiqued for their lack of accuracy. I don't hate him for being rich--and I don't envy him like that, personally. I think he's an asshole:

"Oh, you all are just jealous."

Weak sauce. In the real world, people need jobs to pay bills for food and shelter and so on--that's not envy, that is need. They've got definite feelings about people making short-term money by "creative destruction" of real people's livelihoods. They have reasons to ask, and if he doesn't like the questions, I guess he has reasons, too.

"Quiet rooms", my ass. All I envy is the mic MC Ro'Money has.

Other NH News: Vermin Supreme pushed about by Santorum's Staff.

2012-01-11T07:32:00.003-05:00

The above video shows a crowd of protesters on Monday chanting "Bigot go home!" and "Shame!" at candidate Rick Santorum. It's quite probable that after hearing Santorum's fun answers to repeated questions about gay marriage (basically, I think people have gotten into the habit of pulling his string like he's a homophobic See'n'Say just to hear what weird thing he'll come up with next) people are more or less done with smarmy superannuated altar boy Rick Santorum.

His staff made sure Vermin Supreme didn't get anywhere near the candidate--I genuinely think they were afraid he'd get a glittering. I also note Vermin Supreme got more votes than Randall Terry. Make of that what you will. I think there's some cool people in NH.

Story of the NH Primaries: Huntsman comes in Third

2012-01-10T21:44:00.000-05:00

I've been leaving poor Jon Huntsman alone because he hadn't really bothered me before. But then he gave this answer to a question from David Corn of MoJo, and now I'm like, screw him. Obama appointed him for a job, the guy could have waited until 2016 (when he'd have probably had a better shot anyway) but noooo.

The story is: Huntsman blew off Iowa to concentrate on NH, and still only got a trailing third place. He is now going on to SC, where polls have him behind noted comedy person Stephen Colbert. I not only don't like his chances this year, I'm also thinking he might want to put away ideas about 2016. The GOP primaries get behind the "next in line", and that won't be him.

Rick Santorum Doesn't Believe In the Exceptionalism of America's Youth, I guess.

2012-01-07T17:24:00.001-05:00

Former PA Senator Rick Santorum criticized President Obama over, um, thinking America's children should go to college, while speaking at St. Anselm College. Because that's the kind of guy he is, I guess.

What he said:

I was so outraged by the president of the United States for standing up and saying every child in America should go to college. Well who are you? Who are you to say that every child in America should [go to college]? I mean, the hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best.

I have seven kids. Maybe they will all go to college. But if one of my kids wants to go and be an auto-mechanic, good for him. That's a good paying job: using your hands, using your mind. This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those who think they know how to run our lives. Rise up America, defend your own freedoms. And overthrow these folks who think they know how to orchestrate every aspect of your lives

Which is kind of weird, because, I think what President Obama has been saying isn't that anyone has to go to college, as if it was some kind of re-education center or something, but that our kids should be ready to go to college and able to afford it if that is their choice. But what Santorum twists this into is, "Look at that snob, Obama--who does he think he is? (Is he saying he's better than you?)" Or at least, that what I'm hearing.

It's not hubris to expect the America's children be well-educated and well-prepared to face the challenges of the job market when they leave school; a good education provides more opportunities--an increased freedom, if you will, not an obligation. By indicating Obama is being a snob against people who work with their hands, though, he's really trying to create an impression that access to education is about Obama's values, and that somehow his values aren't our working/middle class values.

That's hogwash. Working people have long seen the value in providing their children with a good education--it's been a part of the American dream to see one's kids do a little better than oneself. Also, he's assuming that education isn't a good in and of itself, besides being preparation for one's career. So what have we got here? Class warfare? Anti-intellectualism? And maybe a soupcon of "you don't have to be a dog to hear it?"

Oh, Santorum. You suck with force of a thousand black holes.

Do these Jackboots Make me Look Tough on Immigration?

2012-01-07T16:26:00.000-05:00

Ah, it seems like only yesterday that TX Governor Rick Perry was under fire for referring to other Republicans as "heartless" for their hard-line positions on immigration. And yet as of yesterday, he's named Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as his campaign's chairperson in AZ.

Now, Sheriff Joe might be a little busy, what with running for his sixth term in this position (even if it sometimes seems like he's not all that great at the job, actually) but I don't really think he's going to have to do much for the candidate, anyway, except look tough. He looks tough, doesn't he?

Well, there you go.

Santorum: It's a Blah thing, you wouldn't understand.

2012-01-05T22:00:00.000-05:00

In this sympathetic interview with Bill O'Reilly, Rick Santorum explains that if you look closely at the video, he wasn't really saying "black people". For one thing, he hardly ever uses that term, and for another, he's worked with HBCU's. And presumably has black friends.

It's like a Reverse-Jedi Mind Trick. I think those are the droids we want.

Anywhoo, if you want a more unambiguously racial reference concerning the "entitlement society" you can check out Newt Gingrich's claim that the "the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."

Satisfied....with....food stamps. I'm not sure Gingrich would see the problem there no matter how long you made him look at that one.

President Obama Takes Care of Business, and Labor, and Consumers

2012-01-05T00:55:00.000-05:00

President Obama took advantage of a Congressional recess to appoint Robert Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as making three other appointments to the National Labor Relations Board. Although there has been some squawking from the usual suspects, I wonder how big a fuss they mean to make over it--after all "We obstructed filling these positions fair and square!" and "Who cares about protecting consumers or labor relations, anyway?" probably aren't the strongest arguments to be heard right about now. It's not like recess appointments aren't ever made, and Obama actually has made comparatively few. The claim that Congress wasn't really in recess as a result of a little legislative trick isn't going to help them when the point was being obstructionist in the first place; it makes the GOP leadership look like they started it--because they did!

Good for President Obama. When bipartisanship has broken down, you still have to get things done.

Bachmann has left the Clown Car.

2012-01-05T00:20:00.000-05:00

Rep. Michele Bachmann's campaign will never be forgotten. It will always serve as a cautionary tale against running a campaign on the basis of "things I've read on the Internet" and "a lady outside the supermarket told me this one time." I'd say it's been real, but I'm still not entirely sure.

Romney gets Very Important Endorsement From Guy Who Thought Sarah Palin Would be a Great President

2012-01-05T00:06:00.000-05:00

John McCain has endorsed the apparent establishment candidate, Mitt Romney. This is so cool, because I got the impression from their 2008 contest for the GOP nomination that they didn't really like each other, but if there's anything you can say about these two, it's that they can change their minds.

Also, I love this jaundiced description from Milbank of the awkwardness.

But the senator grimaced when he was introduced, and as Romney delivered his own stump speech, an increasingly impatient McCain pulled up his sleeve and checked his watch. McCain gave his endorsement address without mentioning Romney’s Iowa win until the end. “By the way, we forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night,” he said, laughing. Romney ignored him.

Delightful.

The Little Wingnut that Could Comes in Number 2 in Iowa

2012-01-04T23:46:00.000-05:00

GOP front-runner Mitt Romney only beat Rick Santorum in the Iowa caucus by eight votes. That's a pretty big deal for the un-Google-able sweater-vest afficionado, and I have to admit, I'm pretty happy with that result. My former Senator is a big favorite of this blog because he's a great snark target. He makes fresh awful all the time, whether it's vowing to annul the marriages of same-sex partners, or saying states should have the right to ban birth control, or just dozens and dozens of other horrible-sounding things.

Despite being awful in what he says and believes, Iowa has given him the gift of viability, just as surely as the campaigns of Michele Bachmann (who I thought might actually come in ahead of Perry, whose campaign has been marred by his opening his mouth and letting words come out) and Rick Perry (who will be going on the South Carolina)have basically been given the hard way to go. And since Bachmann and Perry were the other theocrat candidates, I'm guessing a lot of their supporters might just go Santorum's way, keeping his campaign going despite being low on donations and interest at first.

Also, I think he might benefit from a volatile Newt Gingrich who looks to be raring to go negative on Romney. Gingrich has a knack for the negative, and this can not help Romney's favorables.

Of course, the Santorum surge could just have been because he was the last "Not-Mitt" standing right before the caucus, so no negative attention was yet drawn to him, but I still think this makes the race interesting if only because Romney isn't going to coast to an easy nomination.

(Sorry about the horserace stuff. It's just....I don't follow sports, you know?)

WTF, Rick Santorum?

2012-01-02T13:20:00.000-05:00

As we focus on the cornucopia of suck that is former PA Senator Santorum's usual brain-droppings due to his current surge in the polls leading up to the Iowa caucus, let's not forget his casual bigotry:

For Santorum that means cutting government regulation. Making Americans less dependent on government aid. Fewer people getting food stamps, Medicaid and other forms of federal assistance — especially one group.

"I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money," Santorum begins. "I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money and provide for themselves and their families."

Santorum did not elaborate on why he singled out blacks who rely on federal assistance. The voters here didn't seem to care.

Yep. He said the thing he thinks out loud, where the people could hear. Do I think he said that by accident? No, I do not.

Start the New Year off Right--learn why Ron Paul is a weirdo (besides the racism and homophobia, that is.)

2012-01-02T00:02:00.000-05:00

Manic Pixie Congressman Ron Paul thinks the social safety net is not part of the "general welfare" and that the judicial ruling upholding the constitutionality of Social Security is as wrongheaded as support of slavery. Although he would allow that the "general welfare" might include "sound currency" (But no Fed? And his problem with fiat currency is what, then?) or "markets". Okay, srsly? He accepts the commerce clause? Because you could have fooled me; I was sort of thinking he was a tenther. But he seems to think the Tenth Amendment is even superfluous to requirements. He's calling on "original intent".

A-ha. Now I get it. He's making it up as he goes along. "Welfare" means what Ron Paul wants it to mean, neither more or less. The value of the currency and rate of exchange--Congress' business. Whether elderly people die in penury--not a matter of the welfare of the nation at all. After all, those are only people. We want sound dollars. You know, for people to pay their debts with. But human beings? Phooey. What are they for?

2011 Round-up: My Personal Top Five

2011-12-30T22:57:00.001-05:00

You know, I wrote a handful of things this year that didn't entirely suck, and since a few other bloggers do a round-up of some of their faves, I figure, what the hell? I went with a "Top Five" because ten sounds like just too many, and although I nominated one of my favorites for the Jon Swift Memorial Round-up, I really had a few others that I really think capture what I'm doing on this little blog. So here are my favorites from 2011--in chronological order, with a little explanation:

1) Culture Crusaders, My Body is Not Your Battlefield The GOP War on Women's Bodies was in full swing and I just needed to vent about why people who were so interested in policing women's bodies needed to mind their own business.

2) Pious Frauds: Not Intended to Be a Factual Government This was something I wrote with Blog Against Theocracy in mind. It struck me as important to relate the observation that those in government who seemed most interested in imposing a theocracy on people for their own good seemed least interested in being truthful, themselves.

3) Grover Norquist's Stupid-Ass Ice Cream Cone This isn't one of my more involved pieces of writing, but right about then I was following the contortions of the GOP Congressmembers who has taken Norquist's anti-tax pledge, and I came across a story Norquist relates about his father and ice cream that seemed like a nice jumping-off point for explaining that we are not six year olds.

4) Class, Cluelessness and damned statistics--or Why I'm not About Cutting Slack This was the one I chose for the other round-up, wherein I explain why research into race and intelligence is disturbing and wrong-headed. I wrote it in relation to an ongoing internet conversation regarding Andrew Sullivan's occasional promotion of that nonsense, but I don't care who promotes it, it just isn't right.

and the last:

5) You Would not Tell With Such High Zest The death of Christopher Hitchens coincided with the final draw-down of the Iraq War, and I used the occasion to review his support of that war. Kind of a complicated thing for me to write about, as I sometimes did admire Hitchens, but I never did agree with the war.

So, those were the pieces I felt pretty good about this year. It was neat going back over the year to see what was going on and what had my interest. I think the surprising thing to me was discovering just how much I wrote about the 2012 GOP clown car--especially Rick Santorum, for whatever reason. Also, I kind of like the ongoing thing I've started, "Know Your Class War", which I might do a Tumblr about if I ever figure out Tumblr's interface. One story I didn't follow as much as I hoped was climate change--but I'm sure there will be some opportunities in the year ahead to revisit that topic. All in all, this year was interesting to blog about, and next year will probably be even more....interesting. So I hope if you've stopped by and enjoyed anything you've read here, you check back, because I will be here, typing away.

Excuse me, but I don't think this is how we do it.

2011-12-30T00:42:00.001-05:00

I've been reading some outlandish stuff hither and yon on ye olde intertubes, and I've got to tell you--there is some damn foolishness going on about what some people are trying to do with our one good thing--Barack Obama as our president.

Let me make this really clear--Obama should not be primaried. This is already a notion past the functional "So don't even try!" point, but there are some dumbasses trying to recruit Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as a possible opponent.

Leaving aside for the moment the possibility that any buzz about this idea is GOP push-polling and election-trolling: why would anyone think that we want to try putting a different Democrat in the White House? Isn't that like saying there's a lack of faith in Obama's agenda, which kind of is our agenda? Are we pretending that Hillary Clinton is going to run to the right or the left of him? Because I've heard arguments that go either way. Yes, she is a great feminist whose points that women's rights are human rights, and that LGBT rights are also human rights, are both true and would be....

Well--would be what? I don't know why anyone thinks she would be able to do more than the president whose administration oversaw the end of DADT. I don't think she would get more out of ending DOMA than Justice under Holder not enforcing it--other than what I suspect a Democratic-leaning Congress might try to do if we gain seats in down-ticket elections in 2012 anyway: repeal it altogether. From the right--is she really more hawkish on foreign policy? And is that a winner with Obama's base? Please! Also, if she ran against Obama, she would piss off Obama supporters and make it appear that the Democratic party was having some kind of crisis and uck! Who think this is a good idea? It is not!

But then there are people who only surmise she might be better as a VP on the ticket, and then Biden could be Secretary of State, I love Robert Reich regarding his commentary on the economy to bits, but this is just dead wrong and dumb. Biden would make an outstanding Sec. of State, don't get me wrong, and there is nothing wrong with Clinton as VP. But actually having them switch would invite every hater in the world to talk about "rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic" or some other such disaster analogy. It would imply that these two weren't in jobs that suited their strengths from the very beginning. It's just dumb. If Biden made way--it would be to retire. And ditto, Clinton. I think they are both in the best jobs for their talents.

Which brings us to the 3rd Party crap. Americans Elect seems to be about gaining the support of the middle because the GOP and the Dems are too far apart. This is also so very dumb. I resort to the title of one of Jim Hightower's books: There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. I don't want blue dogs or moderate GOP-ers. I want a second-term Obama unleashed by not worrying about re-election. I want him decisively re-elected, and given the gift of a Democratic majority Congress. And no centrist is going to be as good as our Obama is, now.

I supported Barack Obama in 2008, and even if I don't always agree with his methods, I support him now. I think these attempts to undermine his 2012 candidacy are right-wing trolling, and stupid for any actual liberal to be thinking about. If you want a Democratic president in 2012, or one who will support liberal causes--Obama is still your guy. Don't be distracted by the false arguments. Obama is the president of the US, and the best ally progressives have right now.

Wow. Michele Bachmann's campaign.

2011-12-29T23:52:00.000-05:00

I thought of posting yesterday when Bachmann's Iowa chair, Kent Sorenson, literally went from a Bachmann event to endorsing Ron Paul at one of his events within hours. It struck me then that sometimes, maybe, one might get hints from the universe that now is just not the right time to be running for president. Sometimes it's just the little things, like Bob Vander Plaats' asking her to drop out of the race (which I totally think he did, and I am pretty interested in whether he was looking for a little quid pro quo from candidates regarding his endorsement, too), and then sometimes it's bigger things, like the superPAC that's supposedly raising money to support Bachmann's campaign funding a Mitt Romney ad.

And now, a second campaign staffer, Wes Enos, has jumped ship, after stating he was staying with the campaign just yesterday. As far as a chain of events goes, this one is definitely signalling that her campaign is on its knees, a far cry from her Ames straw poll win a couple months back. But just take a gawking gander for a minute at her rationale for what all is going on, here:

In an interview on FOX News, Bachmann said that Sorenson had told her and others in her campaign that "he had been offered money, a lot of money by the Ron Paul campaign."

"This is really about the Ron Paul campaign," she added. "They are nervous because their momentum has gotten stalled."

Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll in August but then fell out of contention.

(Emphasis, mine.) Current polls show Ron Paul either close to or a few points ahead of Mitt Romney for the Iowa caucus. Michele Bachmann hasn't been a threat in Iowa since Rick Perry entered the race, and he's not even doing so good as when he started taking the mouthbreathing god-botherer vote away from her (looks like they are going towards Santorum, at this point). For that lack of self-awareness, it's no wonder her campaign is going south in a fast hurry. Also, too, iTeleprompter.

She's not making it past South Carolina, is my bet.

Jon Swift Memorial Roundup 2011 at Vagabond Scholar

2011-12-28T22:21:00.000-05:00

Batocchio of Vagabond Scholar is following a great tradition of Jon Swift/Al Weisel's, which is recognizing small blogs via a year-end round-up of fine posts, selected by the bloggers themselves. There are a number of great submissions, and one of mine. I'm enjoying all the fine reading material--and I encourage anyone stumbling by to take a look.

Trump will not be ignored.

2011-12-28T16:34:00.000-05:00

TPM points out this dumb, lying, racist Tweet from Donald Trump which makes the accusation that President Obama issued a statement for Kwanza but not Christmas. Of course, everything is wrong with what Trump is saying--but I have to object to the term "dog whistle" with something like this.

A "dog whistle" is so called because only dogs can hear a dog whistle--just like veiled racism is only supposed to be "heard" by the intended audience. But this isn't a dog whistle. It's a fart noise. It's obvious, it attracts attention, and it stinks. There's not much that's veiled or targeted about it.

It's also hard to tell what Trump's intent is in being this overt; is he truly this clueless? Is he of the impression that this is how politics is done--like fighters trash-talking each other before a bout? If he hasn't any real purpose to this, surely there are other ways to call attention to oneself besides being ignorant about politics. The TPM story also notes that Trump has left the Republican party. This is presumably so he can possibly run on the WTF was That? ticket.

Virginia may actually be doing something right, here.

2011-12-27T00:16:00.000-05:00

Out of the GOP Clown Car of 2012 Presidential contestants, only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul managed to get on to the VA GOP primary ballot. I'm willing to view this as a feature of the strict ballot rules in VA, not a bug.

I've long (as in, since he announced) been of the opinion that Newt Gingrich, for one, was not a serious candidate just because the office of the Presidency doesn't offer him anything better than the long con he's been running ~~since leaving the House~~ throughout his political career. Sure, there might be some gossip that Gingrich left his first wife expressly because she wasn't young and pretty enough to be First Lady, but considering that actually taking office, regardless of what Gingrich might have wanted in the past, would entail not lobbying, or gathering big ol' speaking fees for speeches, suggests that Leader of the Free World might be a step down from "Teacher of the Rules of Civilization, and sometimes Science Fiction Writer". Did I mention that Gingrich lives in Virginia, the state where he is not on the ballot because....duh? Because that is important. He's not on the ballot in the state where he lives--when Mitt Romney and Ron Paul figured it out without living there. This is not Pearl Harbor, people. This is just piss-poor planning. Because he never looked ahead and thought he'd still be here? Dunno. But he won't be the GOP candidate, will he? (I dunno, will he?)

Perry has not been impressive at all since he entered the race. I think he may have wanted it, but it was still a vain and impulsive decision on his part.

As for the others who couldn't figure it out--well, it's either that, or they just aren't as popular as they thought they were. So there.

Leaving Romney and Paul. There's a choice for you, without the possibility of write-in. The way I see it, eliminating protest votes and throw-away votes may make the exercize more meaningful. You are voting for someone who may actually be the nominee. No protest vote. No sympathy vote.

They have a point; I don't think it will make the VA vote meaningless. The shallow ballot means Virginians are more likely to be voting on who will actually be the nominee.

Wow. I think we've seen Peak Ron Paul.

2011-12-26T23:45:00.000-05:00

Every time I checked in on the internet today, there was some new information about Ron Paul. What amazes me is, all of this stuff for the most part has been out there for awhile, and although Reason covered it four years ago--well, I guess Ron Paul was never really considered as much of a contender as he is right now. Or, probably, was, like, days ago. So it's only now that everything gets rounded up, whereas before, it was only occasionally that some media types would even bother checking up on Ron's World.

I think this post from former staffer Eric Dondero, though, is the most--how do I put this? Entertaining. It's framed like a defense of his former boss against charges of being racist and homophobic, while giving glimpses of really racist and homophobic attitudes. Insights like Paul being "most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence" and being unwilling to use the bathroom in a gay person's home just sound so ignorant, but fold in nicely with the image we already have of Ron Paul as the person who either wrote or approved of the person who wrote about a gay/government conspiracy regarding AIDS, or who in 2008 had this kind of alarmist crap as his message on immigration.

This recent pile-on gives me a particular satisfaction for a specific reason: Paulites (I can not bring myself to accept the ablist term, "Paultards") put themselves in front of cameras at Occupy sites, as if maintaining that Paul and Occupy had things in common. Paul wants to hew away at the government in ways that would empower the 1% even more. There would be no EPA standing between you and mercury in your fish, water, or anything else; asbestos in your breakfast cereal; or whatever the hell else businesses could get away with. And he's a dumb naive cluck if he thinks consumers can fix the inequality themselves. Government should serve the people--it isn't the problem so much as people have tried to use it to make imperfect solutions. It isn't perfect, but that doesn't mean it should be done away with.

And there would be no one standing up for the equal protection of minorities in a Paul government. That's a major unremedied bit of inequality right there.

And don't get me started on his denial of a woman's right to choose.

I will reiterate that I do not understand how any intelligent person can support this guy.

Teddy the Porcupine wishes you a Merry Christmas

2011-12-25T07:57:00.000-05:00

Adorable. Makes me consider getting a new pet and a strong pair of gloves.

A Little Girl Talks About Gender Stereotypes in a Toy Store

2011-12-25T07:51:00.000-05:00

Preach, Riley. I wanted superheroes and princesses, myself.

Um, poor....toys?

2011-12-23T17:45:00.000-05:00

This anti-abortion ad is from a billboard in Toronto. I do not know if, in the history of women's reproduction, any female-bodied person has ever thought about the toys when contemplating hir options.

Dear GOD, people! What about THE TOYS? Does no one ever think about the TOYS?

I have to to admit, consulting with inanimate objects about my bodily autonomy never actually occurred to me before. It's an interesting bit of anthropomorphizing, but....oh, how do I put this?

FAIL.

Know Your Class War: Toil Index

2011-12-23T00:36:00.000-05:00

Via Sullivan:

A lot of talk has been made about home ownership in this country, but a lot of low-income people don't own, they rent. One thing about rent is: it can go up when you sign a new lease. One thing about hours of work is, for many workers, especially in the service industries, like retail or restaurant work, there just isn't a guarantee about hours. In a bad economy, hours can be hard to come by for part-time workers. Also, these people are at risk for job losses in bad economies because their employment is more directly dependent on consumers--if people aren't shopping at your store or eating at your restaurant, it will go under. The more hours of actual work it takes to afford to keep a roof over one's head, the more insecurity--because sometimes making rent means cutting other things back to the hurting point--food bills, electricity, heat.

Under those circumstances, an unplanned emergency like a car repair or a medical bill can really just be the tripwire between having a roof over your head and homelessness. Because renting means you continue to pay for a roof that you never pay off--home ownership at a reasonable fixed-rate mortgage is desirable, but for many people, economic illiteracy and bad credit thwart their ability to attain a secure living arrangement. Which is to say, the system makes obtaining a good loan at reasonable terms onerous for low-income people by stacking the paperwork against them, and people are monetarily penalized for what they don't have--money.

So the affordable housing issue comes down to two problems--making sure people can afford to live somewhere by making sure they are paid enough to do just that, and by not penalizing poor people for trying to pay their bills however they can. I don't know that anyone ever looks at the problem that way. But that's sure how I see it.

Ron Paul: "Not a racist, but..." or "A racist butt."

2011-12-23T00:12:00.000-05:00

The more I look at the surprising things found in all manner of newsletters, etc. published by Ron Paul and his companions, the less I care what he actually thinks, because he let this garbage go out under his name. Regardless of what he thinks, he didn't think that that sort of thing either would be associated with him (which is a sign that he was stupid and careless) or he didn't see the problem with it (in which case, that's some offensive stuff). Either way, it doesn't reflect well on him, and strikes me as disqualifying.

The contention that he didn't know what was being published under his name is already weakened by a 1995 interview where does discuss the content of the newsletters. Linkins points out something that undoes a part of the Paul defense on these--that the newsletters' more racist content can't be his because he doesn't talk that way in his current appearances. I think the internet age has made us a little lazy--we're used to a degree of total information awareness. But there was a plausible time when politicians could say stuff in front of one audience, or send stuff out to a select mailing list, and actually think it would never be disseminated to a wider public, so long as they didn't say anything really screwed up on camera or in front of the wrong reporter.

The bigger question of "Is Ron Paul a racist? (or a homophobe?)" is one I just don't see the point in--if someone thinks it's okay to use material that is racist or homophobic, regardless of their own professed beliefs, then they have totally sided with the racists and/or homophobes. It's like when someone you're speaking with says, "I'm not a racist, but...." You know something totally offensive is coming. I would say the person who professes not to be racist is even more culpable if he or she uses that kind of material--because he or she knows better. It's still ignorant, it's just a different kind of ignorance.

But going beyond the "fleet-footed African-American street thug" trope, or the "dangerous HIV-spreading gay male" trope, there is plenty of up-fuckedness just on policy grounds that should be flashing warning signs against taking this guy seriously. Goldbugging. IRS tax-denialism. And regardless of the way it's being packaged right now, his foreign policy is isolationism, not non-interventionism, and his economic bent is deregulation, not old-school anti-corporatism. The guy is just problematic every which way.

Also, I think Sullivan is probably click-baiting with his Paul endorsement. I'm just throwing that out there. I do not see how Ron Paul appeals to intelligent people.

Speaker of Nothing, III

2011-12-22T23:31:00.000-05:00

The House finally passed the two month payroll tax-cut extension, which is pretty good, in a "no more drama, for now" kind of way, but the thing that tickled me about all of this was the timeline. As if this morning, the House GOP leadership was still a "no" on agreeing with the Senate bill (after being a "yes" over the weekend.) And then the funny thing happened--McConnell sandbagged Boehner by saying the House GOP should go along with it, and then President Obama followed up by saying they really should. So apparently, Speaker Boehner had to change his mind, because all guns were trained on him.

This reminded me for all the world of the silly corner Boehner was painted into over the debt ceiling raise five months ago. It's like he's not that good at being Speaker, but, on the other hand, I'm not sure anyone else would do much better given the composition of the House. I think he knows what he's supposed to do, he just can't get any cooperation from his own party.

I'd like to think this sort of dysfunction costs the GOP the House, because I really can't see them holding onto a majority, and things getting any better next term.

Iconic symbol of the end of DADT--

2011-12-22T01:01:00.001-05:00

I've read a few comments here and there on-line about the lack of an iconic photo to mark the end of the Iraq War like the Times Square kiss marked the end of WWII. But here's your real photo about the end of a different war--I think this is it for the culture war. These two sailors kissing has me kvelling.

It's just about damn time.

Just some odds and ends of the Best of the Worst 2012 business--

2011-12-22T00:26:00.000-05:00

Randall Terry, who isn't a real candidate, got glitter-bombed by Vermin Supreme, who isn't a real candidate either.

Nonetheless, I enjoyed seeing Randall Terry being glitter-bombed. Some people need a little disrespect every now and then to keep the world around them sane.

Speaking of which--Gingrich was called a rude thing:

I'm sticking with, "It's funny because it's true."

Oh, and finally, Ron Paul is finally feeling the actual irritation of being asked legitimate questions by journalists about stuff that appeared under his byline, instead of getting fluffed by libertarian fringistas.

I don't really get the appeal of Ron Paul. Some of the things he's said remind me a lot of Pat Buchanan. The non-interventionist foreign policy, for one thing, and the quasi-racist if not actually racist small gov't/but law and order stuff. And yet, Pat was never cool. So how come Pat Buchanan's philosophy turns on ignorant hipsters when dressed up as an ol' country doctor? Am confused.

Anyway--that's my half-assed round-up about some of today's half-assed candidates.

Speaker of Nothing--II

2011-12-22T00:01:00.002-05:00

Thursday, December 22, 2011Speaker of Nothing--II

I wrote a post but Blogger eated it when I went to fix the video HTML-- but at any rate, the walk-out is symbolic of the degree to which Speaker of the House Boehner has no control over these Teahadists.

Milbank has described Boehner's relationship to the Tea Party freshmen pretty well, here.

Benen points out what actually just happened, there:

It’s worth emphasizing that the House Democrats at this point really just want a vote on the Senate bill. Republican leaders gave their word that they would allow this, but then changed their mind when they realized the Senate compromise might actually pass if brought to the floor.

(Emphasis, mine.)

Basically, Boehner has loose cannons all over his deck and he's totally at sea. And yet, you'll hear him whinging that Harry Reid needs to bring the Senate back, or that President Obama needs to encourage the Dems to compromise--because he can't do his job.

That's pathetic.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Continues To Suck

2011-12-20T23:42:00.000-05:00

Sheriff Joe Arpaio was recently found by the US Justice Department to have violated the rights of Latinos and has fired back in typically "it's all about me" fashion by claiming that it's his civil liberties that are being violated by being called accurate descriptors like racist and incompetent.

As I've covered before--incompetent is probably a kind way of describing his performance as a lawman.

Anyway, even presidential politics are playing a part in Sheriff Joe's drama. He's accused the Obama Administration of concentrating on him because an attack on him is somehow going to win Latino votes. (Which of course is what the rancher stepped in, as TPM, who've been all over this, remind, the Justice investigation began during the Bush Administration.) But at least one GOP presidential hopeful loves Sheriff Joe enough to climb into the muck:

Rick Perry:

“I don’t know what all the details are, but I do know this: nothing surprises me out of this administration. This administration oversaw ‘Fast and Furious,’” Perry said during an interview with Fox News on Thursday.Â ”I would suggest to you that these people are out after Sheriff Joe. He is tough.”

(Snip.)

“When I’m the president of the United States, you’re not going to see me going after states like Arizona or Alabama; suing sovereign states for making decisions, particularly because the federal government has been an abject failure at securing the border,” he said.

Sovereign states, eh? Such neo-Confederate Tenther tripe. As for the "abject failure" nonsense, the Obama Administration has overseen an increase in deportations, while illegal immigration to the US is slowing.

Wow, it's just like Rick Perry has no idea what he's talking about, and is supporting a right-wing racist jerk-machine just because it sounds all tough and law-and-order-y! Imagine that!

Know Your Class War*: 1 in 3 Will be Arrested by Age 23

2011-12-20T23:02:00.000-05:00

That seems like a statistic that can't be true, but a study has found that 1 in 3 young people will be arrested by age 23. That's a lot of people walking around with records--but how is that related to the class war?

Well, for one thing, studies have found that the rates of incarceration increase for low-income groups and minorities. Naturally, access to legal representation is guaranteed by law, however, the quality of that representation may not be as good for low-income people, who often will be compelled to plea to some charge--resulting in a record and possible jail-time. For another, being incarcerated has a long-term negative impact in one's earning potential, even after being released. So basically, you are more likely to see prison if you are low-income, and if you've seen prison, you're more likely to stay at lower income. Finally, the US has spotty rules regarding the voting rights of ex-felons. So, depending upon one's criminal record, one might not have the ability to vote.

The incarceration rate in the US is the highest in the world. This leads to a significant number of disenfranchised and economically depressed people

So yes, being processed by the system is part of the class war.

*"Know Your Class War" is an on-going series I've started about factors in US society that relate to income inequality and how systems are biased against lower income people.

You Would Not Tell With Such High Zest--(long)

2011-12-20T00:25:00.001-05:00

It seems an interesting coincidence that the end of the Iraq War coincides with the death of one of its fiercest proponents. Of the various errata among Hitchens' works are evidences of sexism, religious bigotry (but of course!), elitism, but the unforgivable mistake is clearly support of a war of choice engaged by the United States against Iraq, a nation unfortunately burdened with a dictator in the despicable person of Saddam Hussein--of whom nothing good I have to say, a complex history, and rich oil fields. Oh, and the Islamic religion--of which I have nothing to say in relation to the conflict in Iraq, because it should not have mattered.

But it did. In the aftermath of 9/11, not just the usual PNAC neocon folks were itching to invade Iraq (Because of: WMDs, or programs to develop WMDs, or ties between Saddam and al-Qaida, or because Saddam was a genocidal war criminal, or...oh take your pick!) A lot of the Villager/pundit/talking head class were for it. After all, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy. Ask the Marsh Arabs, or the Kurds. And he really did have a sophisticated weapons program as of the first Gulf War.

Of course, UN inspectors weren't finding any evidence of weapons programs as of 2002-03. And the crimes of Saddam Hussein had passed without prosecution from the end of the Gulf War to....whenever it was that the Bush Administration decided that invading Iraq was a necessary thing. Which on reflection seems to have been always. But never mind that. A variety of forces conspired to make this war look like a Very Good Idea to a lot of the voices who mattered. Digby suggests that Hitchens was hoodwinked in part by the plausible-sounding con artistry of Ahmed Chalabi. That didn't hurt...but I also suggest that because of the chummy atmosphere between the pundits and the politicians, it was harder for anyone in that milieu to positively state that the war was going to be a great mistake, if not a criminal undertaking. It's one thing, after all, to indict a Henry Kissinger from afar, but a harder thing to suspect friends of great bastardy after being entertained under their roofs, drinking their booze, or meeting their as-yet uncorrupted family-members.

In the beginning, Hitchens' defense of the Iraq war effort strike me as being of a piece with the general pro-war tone of much of the media--he was only more bombastic about it, but then, his was a style a trifle given to excess. It was only that he didn't divert from it, or recant. He only defended it the more as it became more....contrarian.....to do so. Coates points to his piece, A War to be Proud Of, as painful to read, and I agree, adding that his answer to the question "Why did we get it wrong?" in the five-year anniversary retrospective of "liberal-hawks'" in Slate was: "I didn't."

So help me, if that piece did not strike me as saying "We have always been at war with Eastasia." But in there, I saw what he was saying. The history of the US with respects to Iraq had been one of meddling without accountability. Even in the instance of the first Gulf War, GHWB gave Hussein's subjects reason to think they might be supported if there were an uprising, but let them down. Maybe he thought, and maybe others thought, that the mistakes of the past might be expiated by one grand act of war. A neat, clean surgical affair. Like the first one, but for good and all.

The problem with that is history. The problem with that is that if one allows that a Nixon/Kissinger collusion prolonged Vietnam and complicated affairs for political purposes, or acknowledges that the Reagan Administration ran a black ops war in Central America whilst selling arms to and negotiating with a state sponsor of terror--one can't then also expect anything like a nice, clean, happy little war from the direct heirs of the Nixon and Reagan Administrations.

Hitchens allowed himself to be waterboarded and repudiated the practice. He should have known better, however....he shouldn't have needed water thrown in his face to be awake to the reality that those capable of torture are capable of anything. The mistake he made was a mistake possibly made for the right reasons--a belief that the people of Iraq would be better off without a dictator--that they deserved better; the twin grave errors were in thinking that the dictator alone was the problem, and that force was the sole solution. Or allow a third: that the Middle east needs western intervention because we are so super cool and enlightened. And while history will judge whether it was right to support the Iraq War, what it will not be judged by is what might have been if it had not happened.

Hitchens thought that the Frankensteins of war would not make a monster this time, as if something stitched together from corpses would be anything but.

I think history may still provide something positive for the Iraqi people, but it will be because they chose their path, and we can't really say what would have happened if the war had not happened. And that is why I am a little jarred when reading that Leon Panetta has looked upon the past nine years, and pronounced it "worth it."

I am not so sure. But I don't think anyone decides that--once the bargain is made, the price can't be unpaid. That should be the lesson learned, if any.

North Korea's Kim Jong Il reported Dead, age 70.

2011-12-18T23:38:00.000-05:00

Via Bloomberg:

Kim Jong Il, the second-generation North Korean dictator who defied global condemnation to build nuclear weapons while his people starved, has died, state media reported. A government statement called on North Koreans to “loyally follow” his son, Kim Jong Un.

Kim, 70, died on Dec. 17 of exhaustion brought on by a sudden illness while on a domestic train trip, the official Korean Central News Agency said. Kim probably had a stroke in August 2008 and may have also contracted pancreatic cancer, according to South Korean news reports.

We'll just have to see how Kim Jung-Un, his successor, turns out. You can't say he had a terribly good role model in his old man.

Know Your Class War: The Working Poor

2011-12-17T23:15:00.003-05:00

The number of families where there are working head(s) of household who are still below poverty level has gone up. These people work--often at low hours and decidedly for low wages. They can just about afford to feed their families, or keep a roof over their heads. Many share homes intergenerationally--grandparents, children, grandchildren in one home. These would be the working people who sign up for and use food stamps. Many if not most are in customer service jobs. Some of them take care of our older citizens as home health aides.

When some elected officials run down people who are low-income, use food stamps, and are poor, they are often actually talking about the working poor. These people work hard at jobs that often are physically-demanding, in harsh conditions, with the constant fear of losing their positions. Many have seasonal employment open to them, like landscaping or farm work, but that work is not consistent. There is constant anxiety about making ends meet.

They deserve better than insults from elected officials and think tank talking heads, or talking heads that used to be elected officials.

Know Your Class War: So You Want to Buy an Election?

2011-12-17T22:28:00.002-05:00

Via Mother Jones.

Be still, my rising gorge. Bryan Fischer Re: Hitchens.

2011-12-17T21:54:00.000-05:00

Going a step further than Bob Bennett’s portrayal of Christopher Hitchens, controversial right-wing radio host Bryan Fischer thought the focus should be on where the late author’s afterlife will be spent.

“If Christopher Hitchens is in fact in hell, he’s there because God loves him,” Fischer said. “Not because God hates him, but because God loves him.”

He added: “To me, it would not be a loving thing to compel someone like Christopher Hitchens to spend the rest of eternity in a place that he hated. A place that he does not want to be.”

Via Raw Story.

It's to be expected that people will use the death of a prominent, outspoken atheist to try and make some point about the afterlife and how Christopher Hitchens certainly knows now--but it takes a very special kind of cretin to not only suppose that a person who had done nothing more* than deny the likelihood of a God (and of course, repudiated religion because of precisely the kind of jumped-up, pious, hateful asshole Fischer is)would be eternally damned....but also that this was because God loves him.

(Not to say this is all Hitchens ever did, but that for the purpose of damnation, that's quite enough.)

Sen. McCain could have been President.

2011-12-17T12:21:00.000-05:00

From CBS:

It all started when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized Russia's parliamentary election process.

But McCain took it a step further -- taking shots at Putin, alluding to massive anti-Putin protests in Russia.

McCain admits he picked a fight with the embattled prime minister.

He tweeted last week, "Dear Vlad, #The ArabSpring is coming to a neighborhood near you."

(Snip)

"I just think it's a little strange," says McCain, "that, obviously, the leader of one of the world's largest and most powerful countries would worry about what John McCain has to say. I have a pretty high opinion of myself, but not quite that level!"

John McCain is a US Senator. He campaigned for the highest executive office of the US. And he does not understand why beefin' on Twitter with the Prime Minister of Russia is foolish. I'm just a polisnark blogger who calls people douchebags and 'Shops comical pictures of them, and even I see all kinds of problems with the very phrase "beefin' on Twitter with the Prime Minister of Russia." Just randomly, the history between the US and Russia, current relations between the US and Russia, the fact that McCain isn't president, but nonetheless is an elected official, and so on. It's indecorous and unhelpful, and....

The problem isn't McCain's high opinion of himself, it's his failure, actually, to appreciate that he is a US Senator....beefin' on Twitter with the ....

Oh fuck it. McCain should just retire already, the douchebag.

Christopher Hitchens --1949-2011

2011-12-16T00:40:00.004-05:00

I don't think I fully know how to process this. I fully understand that as many of my fellow liberals found Hitchens completely irritating, galling, provocative, as found him admirable, inspiring, as a person who told the truth as he saw it. I'm a liberal and an atheist in part because of the conversation I have always had in my head with him--Christopher Hitchens: Iconoclast, contrarian, intellectual, atheist, lover of literature, analyzer of culture.

I did not know him personally, but through his writing, I feel like I've known him for years. Of course I've known him--his voice was one of authenticity.He was who he was when he spoke out about whatever moved him to speak. He was wrong sometimes. In terms of his support of the Iraq War he was damn wrong. But in many ways, to me, he was right. His skepticism about saints and the exposure of them, his knocking down of shibboleths--that was right.

I know so many people disliked him for his certitude over various positions, but even where I disagreed with him, I admired his skill in argumentation--I read him because even if I did not agree with him, I always thought he was one with whom one might reasonably speak.

His passing greatly saddens me.

(Many edits--posting upon hearing of a person's death in the late night and after a glass of scotch is by no means the ideal conditions for me to post.)

Some kind of debate tonight--I'm just about ignoring it.

2011-12-15T23:54:00.000-05:00

I'm already pretty sick of these people; truth be told, I already hated some of them before they even started running for this thing. Is Jon (No H in there) Huntsman up in the Q-ratings, yet? Because honest to fuck, I do believe I read somewhere that Newt Gingrich levelled-off in the polls or was even slipping already, and it was someone else's turn, and then I read that Sullivan was endorsing Ron Paul. Who I happen to think is stupid, and so's his kid.

I don't even like Huntsman, really. My whole thing is, if you have an (R) after your name right now, you're saying that you are A-OK with what R's stand for. Anti-Choice. Anti-Gay. I consider you complicit with the Southern strategy, because it still seems to be being used. A cat's paw of the Koch Bros.' because you in part need to accept some of their dogma--whether climate-change denialism or Privatize-everything or deregulate everything, in order to endorse any of todays' conservative clods. In other words, I just can't look--did any of them burst into flames?

I might watch a minute of it if someone burst into flames.

Know your Class War: 1 in 2 People are Poor or Low-Income

2011-12-15T23:32:00.000-05:00

The recent census reveals that one out of two Americans are living in poverty or have a low income. From the link:

"Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too 'rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty.
"The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years."

Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax reduction, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending.

The picture above is from this article regarding children in poverty. Our elected officials have a choice in how they respond to people suffering in this country--and they should be deeply concerned about children who are living in poverty: these kids are our future--how are they being prepared for it? Are they getting the security they need, the education, nutrition, support, to be the workers and leaders of tomorrow? Or are we letting them and ourselves down?

As long as budgets that would account for some of their needs are being cut, their futures and dreams are on indefinite suspension. Sorry, kids. You may have to grow up without us--we're still busy getting our shit together. Keep your expectations appropriately low (NO! Don't! Occupy the future!)

Know Your Class War: Homeless Veterans

2011-12-15T23:13:00.000-05:00

Via Moveon.org.

Everything Rick Santorum Says is Still Stupid and Bad

2011-12-15T21:51:00.000-05:00

I know Rick Santorum has no hope of ever being the GOP nominee, but the verbal train wreck that is Rick Santorum, just earnestly saying the things he believes, is fascinating in its naked awfulness.

Santorum Blames Gays for Plummeting Marriage Rate I blame the economy, myself, instead of a group of people who would actually raise the marriage rate if they could.

Rick Santorum Pleads With Voters To Call Him ‘Intelligent’ Just For Once Although a Snarkocentric website, Wonkette is the right source for following Santorum because there is nothing but snark a healthy person could even muster to respond to this:

In taking questions, Santorum defended his past remarks in support of profiling people as potential terrorists at airports, saying “Of course not” when asked by a woman whether everyone who looks different from him should be profiled.

“This is common sense. You have to look at what the profile is,” Santorum said, suggesting that if a certain group of people were blowing up buildings they should be subject to profiling.

“I don’t want to be called a xenophobe. I want to be called intelligent,” he added, explaining he wants to protect the United States of America.

Eric Robert Rudolph. Michael Griffin. Joseph Stack. Timothy McVeigh. Scott Roeder Obviously, the problem is always brown people with Muslim-sounding names. People who are nothing like Rick Santorum. (I am in no ways tempted to call Santorum "intelligent", except insofar as he suggests the rudiments of self-awareness and the employment of symbols as tools. And yet I am still at pains to discern if, when he manipulates symbols, he always understands their significance. It's all rather like a watercolor by a pachyderm. The resulting pattern resembles sense. But that could merely be a subjective judgment by the observer.)

Cut LIHEAP and Unemployment. He sees no connection to people struggling and their ability to actually pay for the things they need to live. Let me repeat that--he does not seem to understand the connection of people struggling and their ability to pay for the things they need to live. The utilities can't shut people off--but what the hell does that have to do with them getting paid? It's rather like the argument that hospitals (allegedly) can't turn a patient away--but what does that have to do with the hospitals getting paid?

The reason he doesn't do well isn't because he doesn't say reliably conservative things--it's because they just sound dumber when he says them.

Newt Gingrich-related thing that made me laugh my ass off, today:

2011-12-15T20:49:00.000-05:00

I take Rt 1 North into Trenton, and saw this ad just a bit before my exit. I was taken aback a little--the PA primary is a ways off yet, and I couldn't fathom why there was a billboard with Newt Gingrich on it--

And then I read it: "Faithful Republican....Unfaithful Husband. Welcome to the Ashley Madison.com era."

I laughed for a sustained minute. There is nothing, but nothing, funnier than Mr. "Forget My Family, What About Your" Family Values getting a good lampooning.

By the by--did you hear the one about the three wives and a candidate's web-page? 'Cuz that one is kind of funny, too.

Oh, I couldn't get to my cellphone while in Rt 1 traffic that quick, so this pic is lifted from Attytood, because Bunch is always on top of it. He mentions that the National Review is fully intending to kick Newt Gingrich's behind up one side and down the other and make his campaign walk with a limp.

You know, if the Republican voters picked Gingrich, that billboard would just be as funny as cholera in comparison.

Donald Trump is too Donald Trump for the Debate he Would have Hosted.

2011-12-14T01:15:00.000-05:00

Whatever, player. Maybe Donald the Trump needs to run. Or jog. Or sprint--long story short :some people who do the politics think Trump should even be in politics, and so, he might have to do the politics instead of host other people who do the politics. Like Gingrich or whathismawhosits.

So forgive him if he has to beg off a debate to be more relevant later--after the debates, as a possible independent candidate, with no real constituency.

WTF?

He just quit a debate he wasn't even a contestant in--that sucks. Trump--so totally fired!

I'm not sure what value is added by him, except for comic relief.

Romney meets diversity in NH--veteran Bob Garon.

2011-12-13T23:59:00.000-05:00

I know a lot of bloggers are of the opinion that Romney's voter-identifier software was blown by Garon's appearance as a Vietnam vet and that he sort of didn't understand that the human being in question was a gay person until too late--

But the answer he gave was just about the only answer the chimera of "electability" as a GOP candidate offered. So he applied the formula "marriage is between a man and a woman", which is the answer he had to give per GOP CW. Although, as the info re: who donated to Prop 8 revealed, his church is wicked anti-gay marriage, also, too.

I hope this serves as a lesson, though: gay isn't an age, or an appearance, or a cultural phenomenon. Being LGBT* is just one identity out of many experiences or identities a person can have. I think the idea of intersectionality is still one that people are still having problems wrapping their heads around--gays can be vets, gays can be religious, gays can be conservatives, and gays can be old, white, rural, wear plaid, whatever. Romney gave the answer his party would have expected to a person he expected wouldn't be gay.

I kind of hope this reminds people not to give expected answers, or to expect things about other people--just respect who people are, and give them the freedom to be that! And make up your own mind--don't let it be made up for you!

To know, know, know him, is to loathe, loathe, loathe him, and they do--

2011-12-13T23:30:00.000-05:00

Sullivan has been compiling some of the full-tilt open worrying going on amongst conservatives over the possibility of Newt Gingrich getting the GOP nomination, because they are pretty sure he's going to blow it, big time. He has a point--the scariest thing about Gingrich is that he would lay the whole agenda of today's GOP bare. He can absolutely dissemble--especially when it comes to defaming "The Secular Socialist Left Machine" or whatever he's calling it these days, but about his big ideas--

Those are not lies; they are the explanation of the rules of civilization, you guys! Gingrich has always had a talent for finding the lowest instincts of the GOP base, and making whatever he found there (misogyny, racism, religious bigotry, homophobia) sound like virtues. The problem is, the line between bullshitter and believer is hard to discern--and what's more, Gingrich doesn't actually always know when he's "gone too far" for the delicate sensibilities of the pseudo-centrists of the Village. His self-importance doesn't exactly endear him to the people he's worked with, either. And even though the Tea-Party-influenced GOP of the past few years owes a lot to Gingrich's 1994 election-year taking of the House with the "Contract with America", the path he lead the GOP on accelerated the path it was already on with Nixon and then Reagan--demographically more male, white, and Southern. But the country is changing, and that strategy is no longer demographically valid as a) it's numerically stupid since women, LGBT* people, people of color, and people of all religious persuasion--and none, also vote and b) why would anyone even think whites, males, or southerners are still as homophobic, misogynistic, or racist as that strategy suggests? Gaahhh! It's pretty backwards-thinking for a supposed futurist!

Sullivan's take is that by revealing the sick vein of cognitive dissonance that has infected the GOP, maybe the party will be reformed. (How? Forty years in the wilderness? Losing the White House for a generation? Then it gets better?)

Me, I'm more optimistic. The party of Joe McCarthy, Watergate, Nixon, Iran-Contra, the Southern Strategy, the Iraq War, the war on women's right to choose, the war against marriage equality, the party of marginalization and reinforcement of privilege and the status quo--the party that saw the arc of history bending towards justice and shouted "stop!"--chokes on Gingrich's big head full of stupid ideas and rattles towards its ultimate end-phase: division into Libertarians, Constitutionalists, White Nationalists, Dominionists, and all the little tribes that once fit under a big tent, until a mighty storm of hot air blew the tent away. And they never were able to use the government to benefit privilege or exclude minorities (like stupid voter-ID laws or gay-marriage bans, now) or innumerately use supply-side witchcraft to screw up the economy again. Amen.

A girl can dream, no?

I think the hard work against Romney has already been done--unaired Kennedy attack ad:

2011-12-13T22:28:00.000-05:00

Via Politico. Oh, and the story that goes with it is pretty effective stuff, too:

“The way the company was rescued was with a federal bailout of $10 million,” the ad says. “The rest of us had to absorb the loss … Romney? He and others made $4 million in this deal. … Mitt Romney: Maybe he’s just against government when it helps working men and women.”

The facts of the Bain & Co. turnaround are a little more complicated, but a Boston Globe report from 1994 confirms that Bain saw several million dollars in loans forgiven by the FDIC, which had taken over Bain’s failed creditor, the Bank of New England.

Romney aides pushed back strongly on the Democratic charge that Bain & Co. received anything like a TARP-style “bailout.” While the FDIC is a government agency, it is funded by deposit insurance payments rather than taxes. The agency agreed to reduce Bain & Co.’s liability to the Bank of New England, but didn’t pump new funds into the flagging firm. Other Bain creditors also took a haircut in order to avert the company’s collapse.

This has already been sort of brought up by fellow GOP primary candidate Newt Gingrich, who has challenged Mitt Romney to "give back all the money he's earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years at Bain". I'm not sure how effective that challenge will be in the GOP primary, but it will no doubt be used against Romney if he wins the nomination--which leads me to wonder if that was something of a long-range calculation on Gingrich's part. The two good charges Gingrich has levelled at Romney: that he would have been a career politician if Kennedy hadn't beaten him and that his business involved "vulture capitalism" at its most predatory, are effective swipes at Romney's pose as an experienced businessperson and outsider to government whose private sector know-how will improve the economy. They work for Gingrich in the short run by undermining what Romney is pitching as his strength--but they also work as a time bomb against Romney in the general election where public sentiment will not favor a person who displayed a talent at profiting off of firing people and bankrupting companies. That undercuts the claim that has been made all along that Romney is simply more electable.
I can't resist suggesting that the claim re: electability has been....Newtralized? (If I believed in Hell....yeah, I'd be going to Hell for that one....) With an assist from Ted Kennedy. (Politics....bedfellows....strangeness. Yadda, yadda, yadda.)

Don Blankenship has a new company. It is a coal company.

2011-12-12T00:57:00.000-05:00

When I read this a short while ago, I was taken a little bit aback. See, it just seems to me that if you've run a business where your reputation as a polluter is notorious, where your employees have died from preventable incidents due to disregard for safety practices--and where a record settlement was just made regarding a horrific accident at your old company, maybe you should think about doing something that isn't operating coal mines. Maybe your time is better served portioning out alms to widows and orphans, or setting up an endowment for respiratory disorders research, or maybe just staying retired. I don't know why folks do anything, sometimes. It just seems to me that if massive environmental disasters and mangled bodies were left in one's wake, why, one might just as well not go back into a business one did so poorly at--

Profitably. But poorly, in any moral sense of the word.

Farm Dust and You--a Bullshitters' Guide to The Deregulate Everything Movement

2011-12-11T00:53:00.000-05:00

I'm on a kvetch about the anti-regulation jihad the GOP has been about lately, and I just remembered this story I saw at Steve Benen's blog:

Following up on an item from the other day, House Republicans are still hard at work, tackling imaginary concerns.

The House on Thursday approved legislation Republicans said was aimed at ensuring the EPA cannot regulate so-called “farm dust.”

The House on Thursday afternoon approved legislation Republicans said was aimed at ensuring that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot regulate so-called “farm dust.”

The Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act, H.R. 1633, which would prevent the EPA from issuing any new rule over the next year that regulates coarse particulate matter, or “nuisance dust,” passed in a 268-150 votes.
Here’s the final roll call — the bill enjoyed unanimous Republican support, as well as the votes of 33 House Democrats.

Just to refresh some memories, the legislation intends to stop proposed regulation that hasn’t, in reality, been proposed.

As Tim Noah explained this week, “It’s political bullshit. There is no pending farm-dust regulation. What there is, is an attempt by Republicans to persuade everybody that there is a pending farm-dust regulation so they can pass a new law exempting the agricultural industry … from an existing clean-air regulation that hardly ever affects farms (but, when it does, addresses a legitimate health issue).”

The House of Representatives just passed a bill to stop regulation that wasn't even being proposed. Why? Because someone was "thinking about it"? Because any and all regulation, to the Republican mind, is at any rate all the time wrong and bad?

I dunno. I'm just a small and slackerish blogger, but my perusal of denialist blogs (you can do a search on this yourself, if you'd like) suggests that for some reason (:cough: global warming :cough cough:) more rural dust might be expected as a consequence of drought conditions prevailing in certain areas. It's almost as if certain deregulation bodies anticipate the fruition of outcomes that only occur if global climate change was a real thing! Imagine that!!!! So the farming community might be advised that their misfortune will be used against them (because let's face it, if your corn, sorghum, or alfalfa was buried under a haboob, that shit is seriously undermining your profitability) in order to pre-emptively strike against the overreach of a regulatory agency--the EPA--

When in all seriousness, the farmers should be looking at the industries that are historically anti-regulation and are banking on their misfortune via some negative weather effects. In other words--Big Fossil Fuels.

Hmm.. It would strike me that maybe, just maybe, if I was a farmer I'd want to investigate how global warming and shit impacted my long-range profitability and act to strengthen any agency that stood against that job-killing bullshit. And instead of hearing propaganda, I want to hear more about how my area was supposed to be affected by climate change. And I'd want to roast the M.F.-ers that were trying to convince me to support combating the EPA--when naturally, if the EPA knew which side their bread was buttered on, they'd be concerned above all with issues that ensured water was safe to drink and irrigate with, and that the environment did not poison produce or livestock. Just so that as a farmer, I'd be sure that we are producing healthful food, not spreading a problem.

Just a thought.

Yet another Republican Presidential Primary Debate--

2011-12-10T23:24:00.000-05:00

This one seemed a bit more contentious:

I can't help but enjoy watching them zing each other. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if the candidates were all pretty cheesed off at all the debates and having to keep on trying to be civil, relevant, "on", and not actually at each others' throats.

If further debates could only ensure they all were less civil, relevant, "on", and actually set them all at each others' throats, I would consider this a net positive. Too bad they all but Gingrich and Santorum turned down the Trump/Newsmax thing. ::Heavy sigh::

Everything Rick Santorum Says is Stupid and Sad. It's Stup-ad.

2011-12-09T00:28:00.002-05:00

This is something I was jotting down notes on today, when I found that Melissa McEwan from Shakesville already covered a lot of what I was going to post about. But two things make me need to post about all the sad stupid things Rick Santorum has been saying lately, anyway: Hey, when she's right, she's right (Melissa is more often right than not. This is why I haunt her site and frequent her comments). Also: everything Rick Santorum says is really stupid. And, also: he was my senator. I've been watching him since he became my senator. I've been watching him since he stopped being my senator. He never got any better.

So to break things down, here's some of the dumb shit that has frothed out of his word-hole, lately:

We don't need food stamps because obesity rates are so high. Hi, my fake name is Vixen, and I'm fat. As a result of being fat and also dieting, I know all the things about being fat. You can be malnourished and be fat. You can be hungry and be fat. Your body needs nutrients, and cup o' something and mac'n'cheese and the other foods available to poor people are not full of nutrients, but are full of calories and fat, and boy, can you get fat on'em, but guess what? You still aren't well-fed. You can eat them and still be hungry for "real food". You're just fat and hungry and probably wishing you could lay your hands on a vegetable. And is he saying fat mommas and daddies don't have any right to be able to feed their lean and hungry children? Because, you know, kids don't work or have a lot of money, but they have to eat. And old people have to eat, too. Same stories about food availability apply. Fat =/=well-fed.

Everything undocumented workers do is illegal. They breathe illegally. They sleep illegally. They love their kids illegally. They work and pay taxes they get no benefit from illegally. They love this country and it's opportunities illegally. They think this is one of the best places to live and raise a family illegally. Why does Rick Santorum think that working hard, paying taxes, and raising your family should be illegal? Oh, yeah, because some of these people are Hispaniards, or something. I fail to believe he has really thought about this topic at all.

People die because of bad decisions, like having a body made of meat. This is terribly stupid stuff. If a person fails to seek medical care for small things, like routine check-ups, it could very well be because they did not favor paying for that stuff over other considerations, like food and rent. Also, because most people are not doctors, they aren't the best judges of when they really need to see a doctor. Also--I think he doesn't understand the whole: "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" notion, and his statements about pre-existing condiations actually is nonsense. Obviously, it would be better if more people were paying into the insurance system as it currently exists, and that includes the healthy (this drives down costs as amortized over the whole insurance "pool")--oh and if it would be better for Santorum to pay more for his child (no criticism re: his disabled daughter, here), does he get that not everyone who has a disabled child can afford more under the "oh, pre-existing condition" label? And that people who were born with a disability or pre-existing condition grow up and have to be responsible for themselves--and might be priced out of mere existence, if they need insurance to pay for their basic needs?

Marriage equality=kids know about teh ghey sexes. I went to public school, and I failed to be instructed about blowjobs or even how to properly address a vulva, should I ever come across one other than my own. I did not learn about the reverse cowgirl or fixing the spike, nor the benefits of prostate stimulation. I did not learn that if I was attracted to women, this was okay. And it might have helped if that was brought up during my sex ed. I knew it was true. I just thought other people might need to be educated about that, was all. I have no idea about the moral superiority of eating cock over eating pussy, but I don't think there is one. I mostly just concentrate on whether I am making my partner(s) happy with what all I'm doing. It may scandalize Rick Santorum to know this, but gay, lesbian and bisexual people exist and actually have spouses, lives, kids, and are a part of society. When I was a youngin' introduced to adult straight couples, no one bothered me with whether they were all about the Mish or hangin' with third parties or experimenting with anal. It was not my little baby bidness what they all were doing--as it is not anyone else's business whay gay folks are doing--for fuck's sake! Rick Santorum, get yo' mind out of other folk's bedrooms! Mind your own beeswax!

I'm thinking that what Santorum's deal is, that he came to his conclusions first, then came up with bullshit justifications for why he has his positions after the fact. It's amazing how he can ignore, though, all the human business that fits outside of his assumptions. It's like he doesn't understand how anything works. But he still thinks he has anything to say about how people should live.

Don't want any person, place or thing, trying to pull the REINS in on me--

2011-12-08T23:17:00.000-05:00

The House passed something called the REINS (or Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) Act today. The idea behind the bill is that the controlling party of either chamber gets veto power over any new regulations of the federal government over industries. As far as these things go--it's so very, very Republican. It's unlikely to clear the Senate, and even if it did, President Obama would surely veto the heck out of it. But just listen to this kind of rhetoric:

"Who do the regulators answer to? No one," said Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in debate on the House floor. "When the regulators go to work every day, like most people go to work, their work assignment's a little different," Poe said. "In my opinion, they sit around a big oak table, sipping their lattes. They have out their iPads and their computers, and they decide, 'Who shall we regulate today?' And they write a regulation and send it out to the masses and make us deal with the cost to that."

Rep. Ben Quayle (R-Ariz.), argued that if Congress can stop rules in their tracks, businesses will flourish. "Poll after poll of small business owners, of medium-sized business owners -- they will show you and tell you that major regulations are holding back their expansion and the ability of them to hire more workers," Quayle said.

That is just fabulous--the regulators are "sipping their lattes". I bet they go on to have an arugula salad for lunch after a hard half-day of regulatin'--so unlike the red meat job-creators, who probably take their coffee black and sweetened with the tears of widows. You know, I'm not a government regulator, but I bet they probably consider other stuff, like employee deaths, possible dangers to consumers, the despoiling of the environment, and other bummers that serious people might think about after reviewing and considering pages and pages of data including heart-wrenching anecdotes about the victims of corporate abuses in the pursuit of profit--but that's just how I think. But no, really. Oak tables, lattes. Also--I'm not really sure what polls Ben Quayle is talking about. I don't really think the link between regulation and job growth has been all that conclusively proven.

I'm sure many informed people might be saying to themselves, "But I thought Congress already did have oversight over this stuff--and wouldn't this lead to gridlock in a climate where even pro forma stuff like judicial appointments and debt ceiling raises are subject to blocks and filibusters and all that?" Yeah, you totally have that right. It's a stupid bill--the big deal is trying to override presidential veto and basically weakening the government's effectiveness at regulating businesses overall. In that way, the road is made smooth for more fracking, and mountaintop removal, and arsenic in the apple juice, and deep-sea drilling disasters, and all the other kinds of stuff that sometimes remind us why a government should not, actually, be small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, but might actually play a protective role for its citizens.

In other words--such total crap. But thanks, House Republicans, for really showing us what you all stand for. For the very next industrial disaster, I will surely be thinking of you.

Taking a flight of fancy with Newt Gingrich

2011-12-08T21:51:00.000-05:00

So, when Newt Gingrich said that he would appoint John Bolton as his Secretary of State at a forum hosted by the Republican Jewish Coalition, it could have been taken for a wee smidgen of typical pandering, but I didn't see it that way.

No. I went on a flight of the imagination--the sort of thing that paying attention to what Newt Gingrich says often leads people to do. He's a man of Big Thoughts. He doesn't merely engage in a wee smidge of pandering to select groups. That's beneath him. When Gingrich panders, he panders on many levels that appeal to a wide range of conservatives. So let me set the vision up for you: I don't doubt for one minute that he's dead serious that he absolutely would ask John Bolton to be his Secretary of State.

Now, it helps to just skip right over the part where he gets the GOP 2012 nomination, and then somehow squeaks one out in a truly bitter, mudslinging fight against the "secular, socialist, anti-colonial Kenyan appeasement junky" because that's just details. You have to fast-forward to the part where President Gingrich is facing a deeply-divided nation depending upon his leadership and cunning for, not just assurance, but survival. So he would naturally need to project strength to the world outside of America's borders--you with me?

So who does he pick for Secretary of State? Damn right, former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Because nothing projects strength like a partisan confirmation fight where the president's first choice for S.o.S. is rejected because of being batshit crazy.

Now, a reasonable person might surmise that since John Bolton only became Ambassador to the UN because of a recess appointment, because the US Senate would not confirm him, and because it's unlikely that the electorate would so drastically change the composition of the senate as to make it more amenable to someone who is, well, John Freaking Bolton, that this is to be expected. And of course it is.

But this makes a lovely opportunity for a President Gingrich to pour himself a big old bowl of resentment flakes, and claim that The Left Borked Bolton because they don't want America to succeed. Then he picks someone reasonable, but in the meanwhile, he's scored very valuable Conservapoints (redeemable for drinking songs made in his honor in Wingnut Valhalla). The right wing would be more unified than ever against The Left, and the Villager Media will concede that Gingrich Has a Point.

I know. It's ridiculous that this fantasy unscrolls in my brain like that. I mean, good gravy, what kind of weirdo would plan drama like that in the event that he was ever tasked with the serious job of POTUS?

A pro, that's what kind.

I do not care for Newt Gingrich.

Check my last post, then see this Rick Perry Piece of Bullshit

2011-12-07T23:51:00.000-05:00

So what he's saying is, people who have different sexual orientations can serve this country in the military, and yet---um--wow, big stupid lie, of course anyone can pray in class using their "inside voice". Duh. Even I used to do it when I sort of thought there was a higher power when I was attending public school in the back-when. Also, I sang in choir during Christmas concerts, singing Christmas carols back then, so, I think we sort of still acknowledge this country's Christian privilege. And I'm pretty sure this is still how things are done today. So, um, Obama is the current president of a free nation where people can pray and celebrate Christmas and serve in the military regardless of orientation, but a Perry Christianist presidency might make people a little less free, because he's anti-gay and anti-"notChristian"?

Was this supposed to be an advert in his favor?

Okay. All great reasons to never vote for Rick Perry.

Sec. of State Clinton Gives Historic UN Speech Re: LGBT* Rights

2011-12-07T23:26:00.000-05:00

Transcript found here.

Now, there is still, as you all know, much more to be done to secure that commitment, that reality, and progress for all people. Today, I want to talk about the work we have left to do to protect one group of people whose human rights are still denied in too many parts of the world today. In many ways, they are an invisible minority. They are arrested, beaten, terrorized, even executed. Many are treated with contempt and violence by their fellow citizens while authorities empowered to protect them look the other way or, too often, even join in the abuse. They are denied opportunities to work and learn, driven from their homes and countries, and forced to suppress or deny who they are to protect themselves from harm.

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Now, raising this issue, I know, is sensitive for many people and that the obstacles standing in the way of protecting the human rights of LGBT people rest on deeply held personal, political, cultural, and religious beliefs. So I come here before you with respect, understanding, and humility. Even though progress on this front is not easy, we cannot delay acting. So in that spirit, I want to talk about the difficult and important issues we must address together to reach a global consensus that recognizes the human rights of LGBT citizens everywhere.

Gay rights are human rights. I am so glad this administration has made a point of this. This speech is not perfect, but right in so many ways. I am proud that this is done even in the face of our haters at home, about whom I will naturally continue to post.

In the words of a great man--the time is always right to do what is right.

My respect for Hillary Clinton also increases.

Massey Energy (Alpha Natural Resources) to pay largest settlement in Blast that Killed 29 Workers

2011-12-07T22:57:00.000-05:00

Just to follow up on a matter that I had posted about a while back, Alpha Natural Resources, which took over Massey Energy, will be paying $209 million in civil penalties and restitution as a result of the mine explosion that killed 29 men.

Although this is a record settlement, the systematic and pervasive violation of mining regulations is probably not going to be handled by monetary penalties alone. Unfortunately, it seems that businesses consider the price of getting around regulations, via fines, lobbyists to undo regulations, and the deaths of workers, as being a part of the overhead of doing business. Some say only criminal penalties will be sufficient to persuade the industry to change its ways:

Under the federal mine act, safety violations, with the exception of falsifying records, are categorized as misdemeanors. That limitation that could make it hard to build a case against senior managers, like Don Blankenship, the former chief executive of Massey, lawyers said.

In all, 18 Massey executives have refused to be interviewed by federal investigators, invoking their Fifth Amendment rights.

“Until someone goes to jail, there will be no justice done here,” said Cecil E. Roberts, president of United Mine Workers of America International.

I'm highlighting this story in part because it serves as an example of the ways in which businesses don't even follow such regulations as actually exist, even in the face of severe financial civil penalties. This is a far cry from any suggestion that in the vein of enlightened self-interest, such industries would ever self-regulate. In the absence of regulation, I only suspect things would be worse, and am therefore very leery of politicians who imply otherwise.

When is a Sheriff not a Law Man?

2011-12-07T22:13:00.000-05:00

Unfunnily enough, it's when an AZ sheriff with a history of human rights violations ignores literally hundreds of sex-crime violations. I don't find the two things to be unconnected: actually, I tend to think that the kind of personality that is at home with strutting prisoners about in pink underwear or chaining pregnant immigrant women might be too busy pursuing made-up crimes against people he has a personal beef with, than following up on actual crimes against real victims.

Just based upon his self-promotional activities, vis a vis books, tv, swag, it looks to the concerned outsider that Sheriff Arpaio believes that his job is to serve, protect, and promote--Joe Arpaio. His treatment of the prisoners that have come under his authority has been historically horrible, whimsical, and publicized--by no less than himself. This kind of authoritarian behavior suggests to me the kind of mentality that might not take sexual abuse crimes that seriously, because, after all, how are people supposed to be treated, anyway? Just what is human dignity, and what should victims expect, in the face of someone with more power?

He didn't pursue those cases because he didn't see the point. It wasn't just the incompetence of not knowing how or deciding roughing up brown people was more important to him; he didn't see the problem, there. In his world, bad things happen to people, and if it happened, well--

Who is he to say whether they deserved it or not? This is all of a piece with the assumptions of rape culture, is it not? If these complainants were there to be victimized--are they really victims? And what of the perpetrators? Following out that thought, the idea that he didn't see those people, those abusers, the rapists and the pedophiles, the violent sociopaths that hurt other people because they had the power to do so, disturbs me precisely because his practice of the law seems so much to be about hurting people because he has the power to do so.

And I just find myself despairing of justice where there are people appointed to carry out the law, who seem so unsuited for it. Sheriff Arpaio strikes me as exactly the worst type of person to be given authority--the idea of justice just isn't in him-only punishment for being caught, or weaker. His example is egregious, but I doubt he's alone.