Bon Mot du Jour

Joe's on a roll -- or has been. I'm catching up.

Oh, brother!

From Joe.My.God. Paul Angelos, a "gay matchmaker" who obviously doesn't know anything about gay men:

"If you were to put all gay men together in a big warehouse and place the 'bottoms' on the left and the 'tops' on the right, you'd start seeing negative consequences of the anal sex play out in real life for the bottoms such as: disrespect for their general health, failure at work, failure in love and relationships. I am not saying that every gay man should stop anal intercourse today. What I recommend is that gay men re-think the 'Gay-Lifestyle' strategy and stop for one second to question the validity of all that is gay."

This is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to start. Obviously the man has never heard of "bossy bottoms" -- someone in the comments came up with the term "power bottom" -- and doesn't seem to have encountered one in person. (And let's not get into the breathtaking misogyny here.) And the assumption that a man must be either a "bottom" or a "top" is -- well, there's this whole thing known as an "egalitarian relationship," which, given history and social expectations, is much more likely between two men than between a man and a woman. (And thinking back, most of the men I've known in my life have classed themselves as "versatile.") The last sentence -- well, I can't make any sense out of it -- it just keeps coming out as gibberish. What is a "'Gay-Lifestyle' strategy"? And the "validity of all that is gay"? Hah?

There are potentially some fascinating facets of human, particularly male psychology involved in one's choice of roles during intercourse, but it appears that the possibilities here have escaped Angelo. They have nothing to do with stereotypical sex roles, and a great deal to do with relationships -- the protectiveness of holding someone you're fucking, the reassurance of being held, the sense of welcoming your partner into your body, the closeness, the sharing, the feeling that you are as close as anyone can be to becoming one person -- and, from my own experience at least, it doesn't really matter who's on top. This assumes, of course, that you care about your partner. (If you don't, why bother?) (The idea that when it comes right down to it we are all more or less androgynous keeps tickling the back of my mind, but I can't quite pin it down.)

(There are, as of this morning, 238 comments on Joe's post, none of them sympathetic -- except the one he left himself.)

The Libertarian Fantasyland

Via Joe.My.God., this quote from Ron Paul:

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Oh, yeah, just quit your job -- and do what to put food on the table? (And do note that the "blame the victim" mantra is in full bore here. According to Paul, you bear the responsibility if someone else decides to do you dirt.)

Granted, this is from 1987, but does anyone think that Paul has really changed his attitudes?

This is why I think so-called libertarians are a joke. It all sounds very good, in a teenage superhero sort of way, but when it runs into reality, it crumbles.

Somehow, I really doubt that human beings form societies so that the greediest and most dishonest can screw everyone else.

This Is Just Too Good

The GOP campaigns for the Iowa caucuses (you know, that's the one where the fringiest loons in Iowa turn out to pick a winner who can't possibly get the nomination because he/she is certifiable) just get better. Michele Bachmann's Iowa co-chair endorsed Ron Paul. That's funny enough, but this bit is priceless:

Sorenson, in fact, appeared at a Bachmann event just this afternoon — a stop at the Pizza Ranch in his hometown of Indianola.

Sorenson said little at the event, but appeared with Bachmann and clearly offered indications of support for her candidacy.

Fellow Bachmann campaign co-chairman Brad Zaun told reporters Sorenson had just returned from the dentist, and Sorenson himself said he was saying little because he was still numb and afraid he would drool on himself.

That sort of says it all.

A New Word

I created it this morning, and it's sort of a reflection on my post of a couple of days ago featuring the Helsinki Complaints Choir.

It denotes those natives I run into in the city whose behavior irritates me, and also a large part of the legislature:

Illinoisances

Austerity: A Brief History

Interesting post by Richard RJ Eskow at Crooks and Liars on austerity economics and its sad history.

One of those deaths should have completely altered the political debate in Washington. The name of the deceased was "Austerity Economics," and it was first glimpsed in a 1921 paper by conservative economist Frank Wright. Austerity died of natural causes brought on by prolonged exposure to reality.

But the debate in Washington didn't change nearly enough after its passing. In the nation's capital, dead things still rule the night.

Worth a read.

Even someone as economically illiterate as I am understands that if your economy hits a downturn and unemployment starts skyrocketing, the last thing you want to do is take money out of it and eliminate more jobs.

Now go ask your favorite Republican or Republican-lite how to fix the economy.

If you want a take on why the debate in Washington hasn't changed, read this post by Nicole Bell.

Thus, we're looking at a congress that are less our elected representatives and more representative of the one percent. This is why cutting social safety programs make sense...they can't imagine anyone like them actually needing them.

'Nuff said?

Compare and Contrast

By way of background, for those who may not know the particulars, because of last year's record attendance (850,000) and attendance expected to be in the range of 1 million this year, the City of Chicago asked the organizers of the Chicago Pride Parade to change the route and starting time. The new route passes Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Catholic Church on Belmont Avenue, and the new starting time was 10 a.m.

Cardinal Francis George, who among his other accomplishments reportedly personally lobbied legislators against passage of Illinois' gay-inclusive civil rights bill (not to mention the civil unions bill) -- got his knickers in a twist and came out with this bit of extravagant hyperbole:

"I go with the pastor," George told Fox. "He's telling us that he won't be able to have services on Sunday if that's the case. You don't want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Klu Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism."

He backpedaled just a wee bit, but now is doubling down:

When the pastor's request for reconsideration of the plans was ignored, the organizers invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940's, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.

First off, he's lying: the request was not ignored. The parade planners and the city sat down with the pastor and worked out a compromise -- the route still passes the church, but the starting time has been moved back to noon so as not to interfere with morning services. The city had a legitimate concern about the route: it doubled back on itself, and the switchback at Halsted and Broadway was tricky at the best of times. And in the somewhat bizarre world-view of Cardinal George, a change in the route and timing of the parade mandated by the city is now an attempt by the GLBT community to abridge the religious freedom of Catholics -- just like the KKK. While Catholics are not outside the American consensus, it starts to look more and more as though the hierarchy is.

On the other hand: from the church in question:

The annual Pride Parade is one of the hallmarks that make Lakeview unique and we in no way wish to diminish its place in the community. The petition simply asks the City and the Chicago Pride Parade planners to consider our concern that the impact of the new route and time would have on the ability of people to participate at Sunday morning Masses.

Attempts to provide other access to our church will in no way enable our parishioners to navigate the anticipated crowds or to be able to celebrate Mass in the reflective, contemplative atmosphere that is so important to us.

Parishioners, the residents of our diverse community, the many visitors who will enjoy our neighborhood that weekend, all want to have a safe, peaceful and enjoyable Pride Sunday.

As I noted above, the three parties sat down and quite amicably reached a compromise -- with nary a hood or white sheet to be seen.

Did Nixon Have a Gay Affair?

Does anyone care?

You Really Have to Wonder

Those right-wingers sure do love their cross-hairs, don't they? Jeremy Hooper seems to have broken this one.

Sort of gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "shotgun wedding."

My Favorite 2011 Holiday Picture

Given some of the remarks I made in my Christmas Day post, is it any wonder I find this one irresistible?

Via David Drumm at Jonathan Turley.

Today's Must View

Some Stray Thoughts for Today

First off, whatever holiday you are observing now, blessed be. That comes from my own tradition, and although the official day was Tuesday night/Wednesday, one can still legitimately observe Yule today. Here it's sunny, with a forecast for highs in the 40s. On Christmas Day. In Chicago. There's something very wrong with that.

I have no problem with "Merry Christmas" as a greeting -- I have no objections to observing the holiday at all, considering that most of the trappings (including the date) were co-opted from various Pagan traditions -- trees, wreaths, lights/candles, caroling are all part of Pagan celebrations of the Solstice. And it is, after all, the same holiday -- the (Re)Birth of the Sun/Son.

Christmas has a weird history in the New World. Celebration of the holiday was banned by the Puritans -- but then, actually celebrating almost anything was banned by the Puritans -- but in the rest of the country it got more and more extravagant.

It's now considered a secular holiday in honor of the god that most Americans really worship, Mammon. That's when retailers make their rent for the year. (It's actually always been a fairly materialistic holiday, what with the gift-giving and all. It's the time of year when the avarice of small children knows no bounds.)

The War on Christmas, declared by Bill O'Reilly, I believe it was, a few years ago, has become an industry in itself. It's sort of symptomatic of the paranoid egomania that has become the public face of Christianity. Sad, actually -- the real Christians I know aren't worried about it. It's really the province of those who use the Bible as a club.

Speaking of which, I've noticed that some people have a way of saying "I'm Christian" that assumes that tells you all you need to know about them. All too often, they're right, and not in a positive way. There's a certain air of superiority, self-satisfaction coupled with defensiveness in the way they say it that is all too revealing. I work with a woman who is a practicing Christian and is obviously very comfortable with her faith -- when describing one of life's squeakers to me, she simply said, "I'm faithful, and let me tell you, I was praying." I like that -- it makes no assumptions about what I'm thinking. That's the attitude of most Christians I know personally -- just very matter-of-fact, no big deal. I think that's the way it should be.

(These last thoughts were sparked by this story, via Towleroad. The name of the school should have been a dead giveaway that something like this would come down the pipeline. Not a lot of Jesus there. My feeling is, if you've got a stingy soul, you shouldn't broadcast it like that.)

But enough of that. It's the time of year, I think, when everyone (mostly) is at their best. As for me, I'm going to treat myself to biscuits and gravy for breakfast, call my family, and then see what the day has to offer.

And once again, Blessed Be.

Compare and Contrast

I've seen this story a couple of places this morning, but Little Green Footballs has the best presentation.

Especially the photos.

What Goes Around. . . .

This story made my week:

The gay and lesbian community of Minnesota has issued a letter of apology to recently resigned Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch for ruining the institution of marriage and causing her to stray from her husband and engage in an "inappropriate relationship."

"On behalf of all gays and lesbians living in Minnesota, I would like to wholeheartedly apologize for our community's successful efforts to threaten your traditional marriage," reads the letter from John Medeiros. "We apologize that our selfish requests to marry those we love has cheapened and degraded traditional marriage so much that we caused you to stray from your own holy union for something more cheap and tawdry."

You may or may not know what Koch was one of the prime movers behind Minnesota's anti-marriage amendment, scheduled for a vote this spring.

I love it that they're rubbing her face in it. It should happen more often.

An interesting sidebar to that is this comment by John Aravosis:

For weeks now - really since that GOP debate in September when they all got asked about DADT by a gay US soldier in Iraq - the Republican candidats have been confronted, time and again, by gay people, young and old. It's been amazing to watch. And it's something that I don't think has ever happened to this degree.

It hasn't happened to this degree -- it's barely happened at all. My own feeling is that the days of HRC and GLAAD are nearly over, now that we've seen what results their insider method of advocacy has brought. That was the mindset that lost on Prop 8. Look for more in-your-face activism going forward.

Today's Must Read

This article on teaching gender-variance.

It's intelligent, thoughtful, and creative.

Tony Perkins is gonna hate it.

Stray Thought for the Day

I just ran across this little tidbit again in a story about Bob VanderPlaats, Iowa's own homegrown professional gay basher, endorsing Rick Santorum, noting that Santorum has failed to gain any traction in the polls.

Santorum is also the only GOP presidential candidate to campaign in all 99 of Iowa’s counties and has participated in over 350 town halls.

Maybe that's his problem.

Some Clarity on Indefinite Detention

Not having read the Defense Authorization Bill myself, I'm having to rely on sources. It seems NYT, which I quoted yesterday, didn't really read it either. Adam Serwer brings some much needed clarity to the subject:

A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won't be based on the authority in this bill.

So it's simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay." When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would "strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military," or that the "legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial," they're simply wrong.

The language in the bill that relates to the detention authority as far as US citizens and permanent residents are concerned is, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

This does not mean that provision is perfect, or even desirable. As Serwer notes:

Though detention of non-citizen Al Qaeda suspects captured in the US is now mandatory in name only, because of procedural loopholes that allow the president to avoid placing such a suspect in military custody, the bill nevertheless writes into law an assumed role for the military in domestic counterterrorism that did not exist before. This is not a power this president is likely to use, because neither he nor his top national security officials seem to think they even need it. A future US president, even one more enamored of executive power, might still not use it for similar reasons: Because his non-political advisers tell him it's a bad idea.

I'm not so confident as Serwer that the president -- Obama or any future president -- is not likely to use: if the power exists, it will be used. And if the possibility for abuse exists, it will be abused.

In Related Newsn (Update, Update II)

Is anyone really surprised at this?

President Obama came into office pledging his dedication to the rule of law and to reversing the Bush-era policies. He has fallen far short.

Mr. Obama refused to entertain any investigation of the abuses of power under his predecessor, and he has been far too willing to adopt Mr. Bush’s extravagant claims of national secrets to prevent any courthouse accountability for those abuses. This week, he is poised to sign into law terrible new measures that will make indefinite detention and military trials a permanent part of American law.

The measures, contained in the annual military budget bill, will strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military, which has made clear that it doesn’t want the job. The legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial.

Welcome to post-Constitution America.

Update:

From Andrew Rosenthal, some comments on the president's about face on signing the bill. This is priceless:

The White House statement says that if the process of putting the law into force “will negatively impact our counter-terrorism professionals and undercut our commitment to the rule of law, we expect that the authors of these provisions will work quickly and tirelessly to correct these problems.”

Yeah, right, just like they worked tirelessly to draft the original bill. This is Obama bailing on taking any responsibility for signing a bill he's decided to sign.

Update II:

Just to demonstrate how schizophrenic this administration is, get this, from an NYT article on Sheriff Joe Arpaio:

“The absence of clear policies and procedures to ensure effective and constitutional policing,” the report said, “along with the deviations from widely accepted policing and correctional practices, and the failure to implement meaningful oversight and accountability structures, have contributed to a chronic culture of disregard for basic legal and constitutional obligations.”

Umm -- Pot, meet Kettle.

Words Fail Me

Actually they don't, but I try to keep this blog family-friendly. So kids, cover your eyes: The Mayor is a lying prick.

That's my mayor, as in Rahm of Chicago. At least now we know where the Obama administration's disdain for Constitutional freedoms comes from:

Emanuel also wants aldermen to double the maximum fine to $1,000 for protesters charged with resisting or obstructing a police officer, as well as those helping arrested protesters to escape custody. The minimum fine would soar to $200, which would be a $175 increase.

Emanuel also wants to prevent people from entering public parks and beaches before 6 a.m., two hours later than now allowed. They would continue to close at 11 p.m.

And loud noise, amplified sound and music at parades, athletic events and public assemblies would be allowed only between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m. Rules on the use of sidewalks and streets also would be tightened.

The administration did not detail how the changes would affect protesters, saying only it would bring Chicago more in line with restrictions in other cities and make ordinances easier to enforce.

"We are taking steps to ensure we have safe, secure and peaceful protests," police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said in a statement.

This is in relation to the NATO/G8 meetings next spring. And in case you haven't noticed, "resisting or obstructing a police officer" means whatever the police officer decides it does.

Mayoral aides pointed to the city's handling of the recent Occupy Chicago protests in Grant Park as evidence of the administration's ability to walk that fine line. Although the Occupy movement caused sometimes rough clashes between police and protesters in other cities, larger-than-typical mass arrests in Chicago have gone off peacefully.

Leaving aside the distinct possibility that police actions in other cities may very well have been calculated to generate a violent response -- and note how to the Tribune, it's the Occupy movement that caused the rough clashes -- the irony of that last sentence is almost palpable. Let's hear it for our corporate media, who don't even seem to twitch when they come out with a howler like "larger-than-typical mass arrests" indicating that the administration can walk the fine line between guaranteeing people's rights and enforcing the law.

There are days I just want to scream.

Quote du jour

"The trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy."

From none other than Herbert Hoover.

Remember Christine O'Donnell?

The not-Witch who ran for the Senate somewhere or other a couple of years ago? She's still around. This is why she endorsed Mittens:

"That's one of the things that I like about him -- because he's been consistent since he changed his mind."

Via various sources.

Irony du jour

Happy War on Christmas!

Review in Brief: Shoko Hidaka's Geliebter Freund

This is not really a review -- Geliebter Freund is just my latest translation project, a typical school-boy romance, childhood friends reunited variety. It seems to bear out my reaction to my only previous experience with Hidaka -- her stories are low-key and fairly uneventful, with a lot of psychological introspection. I'm having trouble getting into this one, but I'm not sure if it's the story or the circumstances -- I was doing these as fill-in for slow periods at work, and the powers that be decided I wasn't busy enough, so progress has been kind of patchy. I think, though, that the story itself doesn't have that much grab-power -- it's been kind of hard to get into.

One thing that attracted me to this one is that I like Hidaka's drawing style. It's a nice, clean, open style that I find appealing. One thing I noticed is that she is of those mangaka who renders faces in a sort of non-racial manner -- her characters could be Asian or Western. The reason this comes to mind is that I ran across a post at another blog way back when that asked the question "Do Japanese see manga characters as Japanese?" The question left me sort of wondering "WTF?" and as I remember the essay, it made a big deal out of the way characters in manga are designed. (I'm talking about those manga that fall within what I call a "comic realism" or bishounen style, as opposed to those that tend toward chibi renderings or highly abstracted character designs -- most BL manga as opposed to something like Sgt. Frog. Since that time my experience with manga and anime has expanded just a bit, and looking at that question now, it's pretty much moot -- even within one manga or anime, you can find characters who fit comfortably into either an Asian or European "type," if you care to classify them that way. I don't. (Just watching Samurai 7 -- again -- and noticed that there are a number of characters who come close to being caricatures of the Western conception of "Asian" -- of course, there are a number of characters who are caricatures anyway.) Frankly, it's a question that would never occur to me, since it completely avoids the reality of the thing, and takes no account of the history of manga and the influences on it.

By way of a footnote, I was fairly recently directed to an essay entitled "The Invisible Knapsack" as a means of educating me in the error of my attitudes about race. (Which, as it happens, are pretty much nonexistent -- I was raised to view people as people, not as stereotypes. It stuck.) Unfortunately, while a brilliant example of liberal guilt, the writer's experiences did not match my own in any way. Nor did her assumptions. Sadly, the person who directed me did not want to hear anything about the reality of differences in human experiences -- apparently, if I'm white, I must fit into a certain set of parameters that describe my life experience and my attitudes in a way that she finds acceptable. Thus, my last run-in with the PC left. I removed that blog from my bookmarks. They have nothing to offer me.

(And before anyone lands on me, I'm fully aware of the institutionalized racism in this country, hate the idea of it, and won't tolerate it in any realm where I have the power to do anything. That's not what this is about. This is about dealing with people as people.)

If You Live In an Echo Chamber. . .

you get tinnitus of the brain. This exchange between Tony Perkins (a/k/a Satan Incarnate) and Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Fantasyland)(well, actually she's from Missouri, as if that's a big surprise) is in response to the creation of a Pagan worship space at the Air Force Academy:

Perkins: Do you see this as a part of a growing trend that we see that there is really kind of a marginalization of Christianity and almost a promotion of other forms of, I would have to say, fringe religions?

Hartzler: I agree, I think so. Christianity is the main religion in our country and as a policy for the Department of Defense we need to defend the practice of religion but we do not have to obligate taxpayer funds to facilitate or accommodate it or pay for it.

Perkins: Is it the government’s role to try to put all religions on the same plane?

Hartzler: No, it’s not their role at all. Their role is to facilitate basic policy for our country and to not to try to lift up one religion over the other, they should be defending the basic rights that we have, that freedom of religion here, and certainly not facilitating or accommodating fringe religions, it’s crazy.

You know the real punch-line? Hartzler quite obviously just doesn't get it. (I'm sure Perkins gets it, but he's such a cynical con artist you'd never get him to admit it.)

Speaking of people not getting it, more in the same vein from none other than Michele Bachmann (another non-suprise):

JANE SCHMIDT: One of my main concerns is government support for the LGBT community. So my question is what would you do to protect GSAs in high school and support the LGBT community.

BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that’s really what government’s role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights.

JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can’t same-sex couples get married?

BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.

JANE SCHMIDT: Why can’t a man marry a man?

BACHMANN: Because that’s not the law of the land.

JANE SCHMIDT: So heterosexual couples have a privilege.

BACHMANN: No, they have the same opportunity under the law. There is no right to same-sex marriage.

JANE SCHMIDT: So you won’t support the LGBT community?

BACHMANN: No, I said that there are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There’s no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life. You’re an American citizen first and foremost and that’s it.

ELLA NEWELL, a junior at Waverly High School: Wouldn’t heterosexual couples, if they were given a privilege then, that gay couples aren’t, like given that privilege to get married, but heterosexual couples are given a privilege to get married?

BACHMANN: Remember every American citizen has the right to avail themselves to marriage but they have to follow what the laws are. And the laws are you marry a person of the opposite sex.

Note that this conversation took place in Iowa, where same-sex marriage is legal.

Wow!

Sec. Hillary Clinton's speech on Human Rights Day.

It's a tremendous speech. I had no intention of watching the whole thing, but I couldn't stop.

And there's always the added benefit of hearing the heads exploding as the professional gay bashers see it. (Not that I expect most of them to actually watch the thing -- they'll just feed off each other's comments.) Not only is it a strong statement of support for GLBTs, but it's Hillary Clinton. And it's coming directly from that foreigner in the White House.

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Child Labor Laws!

David Atkins over at Hullabaloo has come up with a phrase I really like a lot: "asshole objectivism." That pretty much describes all the Randians I've seen in print. That was in this post, about Donald Trump taking Newtie's idea to put poor kids to work as janitors. From First Read:

Trump explained: "He did mention if I could do something for some of the kids in very, very poor schools throughout the city. I thought it was a great idea. We call it an apprenticeship, and I think we all know about "The Apprentice." We're going to be picking 10, young, wonderful children, and we're going to make them 'apprenti.' We're going to have a little fun with it, and I think it's going to be something that is really going to prove results. But it was Newt's idea, and I think it's a great idea."

That's the answer: exploit the little bastards.

Today's Must Read

This post, from a gay Marine, about DADT repeal and attending the Marine Corps Birthday Ball with a date for the first time.

It's long, but read all four parts. With people like this man defending us, I feel better.

Stenography 101

From WaPo. You can read the whole thing -- there's no substance to it, so it won't take long. Or you can read the headline, which pretty much tells the story.

Newt Gingrich as president could turn the White House into an ideas factory

Strangely enough, the only people they talked to about Newt's "ideas" were from conservative think tanks. How do you suppose that happened?

It's now become "he said, she said" reporting without the "she said."

Oh, and speaking of contemptible people, here's a great post at Balloon Juice on the arbiter of all that's holy in fiscal conservatism.

Sacrifice is needed, but it must come from the poor and the middle-class.

Congressional Republicans have come up with a plan for a ritual sacrifice of workers that is crafted to appease The Grover. Instead of asking any of the Nation’s 300,000 millionaire to pay their share, they will ask all Federal Employees to pay for the extension of the tax holiday and unemployment benefit through payroll freezes and the elimination of 200,000 workers from the work force.