Today's Must-Read: Are We Great Yet?

I fan across this article by Robin Wright late yesterday. It's rather sobering. Wright starts off with a history of the Statue of Liberty -- not what you may have learned in school. Farther along, this struck me:

On the eve of America’s anniversary—our two hundred and forty-fourth—much of the world believes that the country is racist, battered and bruised. “Europe has long been suspicious—even jealous—of the way America has been able to pursue national wealth and power despite its deep social inequities,” Robin Niblett, the director of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House, in London, told me. “When you take the Acela and pass through the poorest areas of Baltimore, you can’t believe you’re looking at part of the United States. There’s always been this sense of an underlying flaw in the U.S. system that it was getting away with—that somehow America was keeping just one step ahead of the grim reaper.”

The flaw, he said, is reflected in the American obsession with the stock market as the barometer of national health—economically, politically, socially. The reaction to Floyd’s murder exposed the deep injustices in the American economic model, as well as in the police and judicial systems, Niblett said. Europeans, he added, are no longer so envious.

The Trump Administration’s ineptitude in handling the covid-19 crisis, as well as the President’s disdain for longstanding allies and international treaties, have compounded the damage to America’s image. A second poll, released last week by the European Council on Foreign Relations, reported that public perceptions of the United States are increasingly negative in virtually all of the European nations surveyed. In France, the country that backed the American Revolution and later donated the Statue of Liberty, forty-six per cent of the people polled said that their opinion of the U.S. has “worsened a lot.” The proportion of respondents who still view America as a key ally is “vanishingly small”—as low as six per cent in Italy.

As I was reading this I kept hearing echoes of Trump's slogan, "Make America Great Again". It occurred to me that greatness is not a quality one assumes for oneself -- it is a quality that is recognized by others. In that context, Trump and his enablers have taken what was once America's greatness and flushed it down the toilet. It will take a massive, sustained effort to regain that -- if we can.

Read the whole thing. Wright also notes the role of capitalism in the current state of affairs, which is itself an eye-opener.

Via Digby.

It's About Time

This, via Digby:

Elizabeth Warren says she’ll create a federal task force to investigate corruption during the Trump administration if she’s elected president.

The Massachusetts senator on Tuesday released a plan that her campaign says will “restore integrity and competence” to government after President Donald Trump. She said that an independent task force would operate within the Justice Department and hold the previous administration’s officials “accountable for illegal activity.”

Warren also plans to ask for the resignations of all Trump political appointees and void any federal contracts that “arose as the result of corruption.”

Good. It's way past time to bring some accountability back into the government. I think one of Obama's biggest mistakes was letting the Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal off the hook. Digby takes it back farther:

It’s time to play the blame-game. Letting these Republican miscreants off the hook from Nixon on is what brought us here.

Every Democrat must be asked if they will sign on to this pledge. Otherwise, I truly fear that Trump’s criminal and unethical behavior will be the new GOP baseline. Every time we let this stuff go in the past that’s exactly what happened.

I'm not sure what she means about Nixon being let off the hook, unless she thinks he should have been prosecuted, but given that Gerald Ford's first act on succeeding Nixon was a presidential pardon, I don't see how that could have happened.

And let me point out something that should be obvious: we're talking about Republican accountability here: the Republicans will make sure that Democrats are held accountable, whether they've done something wrong or not. Democrats, sadly, don't seem to be that lacking in mercy.

This is important:

Warren's campaign also notes, however, that the task force's authority would be limited in scope and that Justice Department personnel would have independent prosecuting authority, meaning the White House wouldn't be directing its work or conclusions.

It would be nice to go back to the Justice Department being semi-autonomous, instead of an appendage of the Trump re-election campaign.

Today's Must-Watch

Just happened across this. It's worth sharing, not only for Bregman's remarks, but especially for the remarks of Winnie Byanyima, who follows him and who happens to be the executive director of Oxfam International-- she's passionate and right on target:

For some reason, I haven't been invited to Davos this year. Was it something I said? 🤔pic.twitter.com/6Qmrup7HrB

— Rutger Bregman (@rcbregman) January 20, 2020

With thanks to commenter Doug105 at Joe.My.God.

Whopper du Jour

This goes beyond Newspeak:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) won’t tweak a recent blog post environmentalists say is inaccurate because the agency argues its blog is not considered public information.

The tension stemmed from a June post on the agency’s blog that included apparent praise for EPA action on pesticides considered harmful to bees.

“The Washington Post has also recently reported on some of our efforts, saying that ‘the Trump administration’s action [to protect pollinators] was welcome news to some environmentalists,’ which demonstrates how united Americans are on this important issue,” Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, the EPA’s assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, wrote in the blog post.

But that Washington Post article more broadly referenced how the EPA scaled back the use of some pesticides as part of a legal settlement with the Center for Food Safety.

Here's the really Orwellian part:

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint under the Information Quality Act, which can be used to demand a correction of inaccurate information from government sources.

“This statement fails to capture the impetus for EPA’s cancelation of the pesticide products, which was that an environmental non-profit had to sue EPA” to stop the use of pesticides harmful to bees, Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program, wrote in the complaint, noting the five-year legal battle. “This quote is taken entirely out of context.”

But the EPA rejected the complaint late last week.

“The EPA Blog is an example of information that would not be considered disseminated by the EPA to the public,” Kevin Kirby of the EPA wrote in response to Burd.

Words fail me.

Via Joe.My.God.

Wow!

I generally don't have the patience for something like this, but this is exceptional: Sen. Maizie Hirono (D-HI) really lets AG William Barr have it:

Full exchange between Senator @maziehirono and Attorney General William Barr: "You did exactly what I thought you'd do, it's why I voted against your confirmation. I expected you would try to protect the president and indeed you did." pic.twitter.com/5ecg4jF2b2

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 1, 2019

And here's Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), who is not having his bullshit:

Complete exchange between @senkamalaharris and Attorney General William Barr. pic.twitter.com/EzydIr8twh

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 1, 2019

Glad I'm not him.

Today's Must-Read: Rearguard Actions

It seems that the Republican-majority legislatures in some states are not happy with losing the governor's mansion and are taking steps to correct it. From Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo:

However history judges President George H.W. Bush's career, the handwritten note wishing incoming Democrat Bill Clinton well showed a respect for the office and for the people's will markedly lacking among what passes for conservatives today. Left upon Bush's leaving the White House in defeat and widely read again at his recent death, the note may have tweaked a Republican conscience or two. “Your success now is our country’s success,” Bush wrote. “I am rooting hard for you.”

Charlie Sykes, the conservative commentator and erstwhile supporter of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, advises Walker in The Atlantic to consider how history will judge him. The Republican-dominated legislature in a lame-duck session last week passed a package of bills undercutting the powers of incoming Democrat Tony Evers who defeated Walker in November.

Besides attempting yet again to limit voting in Wisconsin, the legislation forces Evers to pursue the state's lawsuit against Obamacare, attacks preexisting conditions protections, and codifies Walker's work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The legislation is "petty, vindictive, and self-destructive," Sykes writes, and "worse than a crime. It was a blunder." Signing it, Sykes advises, would be "a huge mistake."

My guess is Walker will sign it: he's that petty and vindictive, just like his party.

It all circles back to what I've been saying about the Republicans for a while: they are not interested in governing; they want to rule -- basically, they despise the American system of government.* And to do that they have to maintain their power, by whatever means necessary.

Read it.

* I've noted this before about conservative "Christians," whose whole belief system is the antithesis of America's foundational principles: they are authoritarian, racist, oligarch-friendly, and hypocritical in a major way. Their motivations are the same as those of the party at large -- in fact, they've become those of the party at large: gaining and maintaining power.

The Lower Depths (Updated)

Maybe we'd be better off if Trump just didn't make statements on tragic events:

President Donald Trump responded to the mass shooting at a Pittsburgh synagogue which resulted in multiple fatalities by blaming the synagogue for not having armed guards inside.

The gunman shot at least three armed police officers, but Trump did not appear to account for that in his remarks. Here is what he said to reporters:

This is a case where if they had an armed guard inside, they might have been able to stop him immediately...maybe there would be nobody killed.

And let's all remember whose campaign for president got $30 million from the NRA.

And in what kind of country do you hire armed guards to protect you at worship? Just for some perspective:

Donald Trump on Pittsburgh shooting at synagogue: “To see this happening again and again and again, it's just a shame.”

He's asked if there's anything that can be done: “Look at the violence all over the world. The world is violent. The world is a violent world." pic.twitter.com/lx4HfBmThf

— Shannon Watts (@shannonrwatts) October 27, 2018

Via Joe.My.God.

Let's face it, this is typical of Trump, and he's not going to change: he doesn't care about anyone but himself (and I'm very serious about that -- I have no doubt that he'd cut his children loose -- even Ivanka -- if he felt threatened enough). And let's be very plain about it: this is his doing. No, he didn't create this kind of toxic atmosphere -- that honor belongs to much more intelligent people than he is -- but he capitalized on it, and continues to do so, because it reflects his own thinking and resonates with the worst we have to offer: he's one of them, a bully with thin skin and a severe ego deficit:

President Donald Trump is refusing to acknowledge his role in this week's terror attacks which culminated in Friday afternoon's arrest of an anti-Democratic extremist Trump-supporting suspect.

"Not at all, no. There is no blame. There is no anything," the President told reporters late Friday afternoon from the White House lawn. He added that the suspect, Cesar Sayoc, merely is "a person that preferred me over others."

. . .

Trump went as far as to commend himself, saying he's "been toned down, if you want to know the truth."

"I could really tone it up, because the media has been extremely unfair to me and the Republican Party," President Trump told reporters. "The media has been unbelievably unfair to Republicans & certainly to me."

Anything that's not slavish adoration is "unfair."

Footnote: As might be expected, reactions to Trump's comments have been less than positive.

Ann Laurie at Balloon Juice takes the press to task, as well. The zinger:

the difference between the trump administration and isis is that isis accepts responsibility for the attacks it inspires

— m i t h (@ManInTheHoody) October 27, 2018

Update: And just to make sure the target is clear:

For the “both sides” hall of fame, here’s the New York Times insinuating that the people who received the bombs might have deserved it. Notable that they left CNN out of the piece. https://t.co/LzTwawdlA6

— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) October 26, 2018

Lo! How the mighty have fallen!

Update II: And from Tom Levenson, a look at history and complicity:

Thirty six years ago, on September 12, 1982, a Lebanese Maronite militia invaded two refugee camps occupied by Palestinians. As The New York Times remembered on the 30th anniversary of the disaster,

In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps’ narrow and darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly men.

That reference to the flares points to the miserable truth behind the blood and broken bodies: the people on the spot, those militiamen handled the killing. They pulled the triggers, broke the women, shattered the bodies. They were guilty of those crimes; they did the worst that human beings can do.

But there were others who stood aside, hands nominally clean while the predictable result of their actions and their studied inactions played out in Sabra and Shatila.

After the fact, the Israeli government ordered an investigation into the massacres, and they got a real one. It concluded that

Israeli leaders were “indirectly responsible” for the killings and that Ariel Sharon, then the defense minister and later prime minister, bore “personal responsibility” for failing to prevent them.

Sharon didn’t fire a single shot; no blood spattered the shoes of his colleagues, and the Israeli soldiers on the front lines in Lebanon did nothing more than stay out of the way. But as the report concluded, those in charge in Israeli knew what would happen if the Maronite militias gained free rein in the camps, and they let events unfold anyway. They were guilty not of murder, but of enabling the killings, of giving permission for an atrocity.

Fast forward to 2018 and a "leader" who gives permission for the unhinged and delusional to commit atrocities against their (his) "enemies."

Saturday Science, Part II: Education

A couple of stories this morning. Two deal with creationists doing their best to screw up science education. First, in Arizona, the Superintendent of Schools appointed a young-earth creationist to a panel charged with revising the science curriculum:

Arizona Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped a young-earth creationist to serve last month on a committee tasked with revising the state’s science curriculum standards on evolution.

Joseph Kezele, the president of the Arizona Origin Science Association, is a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation.

Click through to the original article: Kezele keeps going on and on about "real science" and how it proves Biblical creation. All that proves is that he's delusional. And despite the disclaimers from the superintendent's spokesperson that she was unaware of his creationist views, given her own attitudes, I'm calling bullshit -- she knew exactly what she was doing.

And just to show that we're not alone in our insanity, this one's from British Columbia:

Darrell Furgason is one of the candidates running for the Chilliwack School District Board (in British Columbia) and his platform seems pretty sensible: He supports “Academic Excellence,” “Inclusivity for all,” and a “Quality, fact-based curriculum” that promotes critical thinking.

The problem is that he believes none of that in practice. Furgason is actually an anti-LGBTQ Young Earth Creationist whose primary allegiance is to the Bible and not the students.

Another nine-commandment "Christian". And unless people do some research, which they won't, he'll probably get away with it.

And offered as an antidote to those is this one, about a twelve-year-old who is working on her third book about the joy of science:

Bailey Harris was only eight when she was inspired by Neil deGrasse Tyson (who was hosting COSMOS at the time) to learn more about astronomy. It resulted in her writing a book (with her dad’s help) called My Name Is Stardust, about how all living things are made up of the same basic ingredients. Earlier this year, she released her second book,

Stardust Explores the Solar System

.

Now she’s working on the third: Stardust Explores Earth’s Wonders: Geology & Evolution.

There's a wonderful video at the link that, unfortunately, I can't embed, so check it out. It really is very good.

Today's Must-Read: The Gilded Age, Redux

As is so often the case, this one's from Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo. He starts off on Brett Kavanaugh (as in, call your senators), but segues into what is really the "conservatives'" vision of America:

Grover Norquist in his heyday dreamed of rolling back the 20th century and returning America not to the 1950s, but to the McKinley era. William Grieder wrote about Norquist's vision:

Governing authority and resources are dispersed from Washington, returned to local levels and also to individuals and private institutions, most notably corporations and religious organizations. The primacy of private property rights is re-established over the shared public priorities expressed in government regulation. Above all, private wealth–both enterprises and individuals with higher incomes–are permanently insulated from the progressive claims of the graduated income tax.

Industrial giants would be free at last (again) to strip-mine the economy, plunder natural resources, and re-establish the natural order of land barons and serfs.

The vision of the libertarian/conservative wing of society really is feudal. Kavanaugh on the Court would just insure that the haves will have their way for at least another generation. And the way things are going now, by then us peons will no longer be allowed to vote.

Might Makes Right: NFL Edition

After all due deliberation, the NFL owners have reached a policy on player protests:

NFL owners approved a new national anthem policy Wednesday that gives individual teams the authority to set their own anthem-related rules and permits players to remain in the locker room during the playing of the anthem, according to a person familiar with the deliberations.

The new policy eliminates the current requirement from the league’s game operations manual for a player to be on the field for the playing of the anthem, allowing a player to remain in the locker room. Teams would then have the ability to set their own policy for players who choose to take the field for the anthem, including the ability to discipline a player for any protest during the national anthem.

However:

The new policy also is expected to contain a clause that the league could fine a team for any protest by a player on the sideline during the anthem, according to a person familiar with the owners’ deliberations.

They're calling this a "compromise." Right.

The reaction has not been universally positive, and at least one owner is telling them to fuck off:

Despite the NFL’s approval of a revised policy that requires players on the field to stand during the national anthem, Jets chairman Christopher Johnson told Newsday on Wednesday that his players are free to take a knee or perform some other protest without fear of repercussion from the team.

“I do not like imposing any club-specific rules,” Johnson said. “If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organization, by me, not the players. I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players.

Even the New York Times let them have it:

The owners of the National Football League have concluded, with President Trump, that true patriotism is not about bravely standing up for democratic principle but about standing up, period.

Rather than show a little backbone themselves and support the right of athletes to protest peacefully, the league capitulated to a president who relishes demonizing black athletes. The owners voted Wednesday to fine teams whose players do not stand for the national anthem while they are on the field.

Let us hope that in keeping with the league’s pinched view of patriotism, the players choose to honor the letter but not the spirit of this insulting ban. It might be amusing, for example, to see the owners tied in knots by players who choose to abide by the injunction to “stand and show respect” — while holding black-gloved fists in the air.

Remember this?

Photo:  Getty Images

And one former player noted the raging hypocrisy:

U.S. Flag Code passed in 1942 during WW2.

176: Respecting the Flag

D. “The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery”

I. “The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any way whatsoever.” pic.twitter.com/mCzmklImf9

— Sage Rosenfels (@SageRosenfels18) May 23, 2018

Something tells me this isn't over yet:

The NFL players’ protests have never been about the military or the flag. They’re about police brutality and white supremacy. Failing to protest injustice in America is not patriotic, it’s dangerous. #TakeAKnee

— ACLU (@ACLU) May 23, 2018

And:

pic.twitter.com/3FvuGyy4tA

— NFLPA (@NFLPA) May 23, 2018

Lawsuits in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . .

Today's Must-Read #2: Sociopath du Jour

Mark Zuckerberg, a/k/a Facebook:

Concern about Facebook Inc’s (FB.O) respect for data privacy is widening to include the information it collects about non-users, after Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg said the world’s largest social network tracks people whether they have accounts or not.

Privacy concerns have swamped Facebook since it acknowledged last month that information about millions of users wrongly ended up in the hands of political consultancy Cambridge Analytica, a firm that has counted U.S. President Donald Trump’s 2016 electoral campaign among its clients.

Zuckerberg said on Wednesday under questioning by U.S. Representative Ben Luján that, for security reasons, Facebook also collects “data of people who have not signed up for Facebook.”

I had been patting myself on the back for never having signed up for Facebook -- looks like my congratulations were premature. If they're collecting data on me just for visiting a site that is in some way associated with FB -- like those blogs on which you can only comment using your Facebook ID -- well, words fail me.

And thinking about it, I'd be willing to bet that this is standard practice among these tech/internet giants (can you say "Google"? I'd say "Time to change search engines," but then it occurs to me that Google owns YouTube and Blogger.)

Remember privacy? We used to be able to have some. And just think: this is the conservatives'/libertarians' ideal world -- just let the ruling class decide what's appropriate.

Giggle du Jour

Presented without comment:

“We’re gonna go the whole show without a break” @IngrahamAngle

Oh really, Laura... why’s that? 🤷🏼‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/3UJyv4uBPP

— UnsilentMajority 🌹 (@The_UnSilent_) April 12, 2018

Via Crooks and Liars, which notes that Ingraham has lost most of her sponsors.

March for Our Lives,. Part 8: Karma's a Bitch

I thought I had posted on Laura Ingraham insulting David Hogg via Twitter, but apparently I didn't. Digby has a must-read that examines not only Ingraham but the right wing in general in their attacks on the activist Parkland survivors:

Laura Ingraham did her thing. Again:



Via Vox:

Many conservatives have naturally been critical of the political and policy stances of the Parkland survivors, as would be expected given that they generally oppose gun control.

But some, like Ingraham, have gone further than that — attacking Parkland students, who are still kids, for unrelated and often personal aspects of their lives. Just consider the fact that Ingraham could post an article about how Hogg was rejected from four universities. Why did the Daily Wire, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro’s outlet, find that news worth covering in the first place, besides the schadenfreude the outlet knew it would provide conservative readers who don’t like Hogg and his movement?

It’s not unusual for politics to get personal. But it’s particularly glaring when prominent pundits and even lawmakers are going after teenagers in such a personal way.

Digby then goes on to detail some of the attacks right-wing nutters have made on the Parkland kids. It's pretty disgusting.

Oh,and as for Ingraham:

Hogg called for a boycott, and her advertisers responded, which led Ingraham to an "apology".

Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I believe my show was the first to feature David...(1/2)

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 29, 2018

"In the spirit of Holy Week"? If this woman was a follower of Jesus, she never would have attacked the kid to begin with.

... immediately after that horrific shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy. As always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive discussion. WATCH: https://t.co/5wcd00wWpd (2/2)

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) March 29, 2018

Oh, look -- suddenly she's open to a "productive discussion". Yeah, right.

At any rate, it didn't work: her advertisers have continued to bail, and there are rumors that Fox is ready to dump her. (Lest you think that this indicates some sort of standard or integrity on the part of Fox, well, no: think lost revenues.)

And Hogg isn't buying it:

Parkland activist David Hogg was interviewed this morning by CNN’s Alison Camerota. Via Mediaite:

Camerota pointed out that Ingraham is a conservative talk show host, and isn’t objective, before noting that she apologized for her tweet poking fun at Hogg.  “Do you accept her apology?”

“No,” Hogg said. “She’s only apologizing after a third of her advertisers pulled out. I think it’s wrong. And I think if she really wants to do something she could cover inner-city violence and the real issues that we have in America,” he continued. “I know she is a talk show host, but as such she also has a responsibility to show both sides of the story.”

All I can say is, "Keep up the good work!"

Sorry for the link dump, but my connection is worse than usual and Firefox is fighting me every inch of the way.

It Worked In Illinois

Stories like this are a little too common:

Two Christian adoption agencies in Philadelphia are under attack – and under review – after being caught with policies refusing same-sex couples and LGBT people from adopting children in their care. In the last year alone the City of Philadelphia has paid them a total of $3 million to care for the children in need of loving homes. Those payments are now on hold and an investigation into both agencies is underway.

Bethany Christian Services and Catholic Social Services are both refusing to alter their policies, insisting same-sex marriage is not in keeping with their religious beliefs, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

In Illinois, the adoption agency run by Catholic Charities in the diocese of Peoria (headed by notorious homophobe Bishop John Paprocki) was turning down gay couples as prospective parents. Interestingly enough, this only became an issue for the Church when same-sex marriage was looming on the horizon.* The governor cut off their funding and the attorney general threatened to revoke their license. Ditto with two other dioceses, including the Archdiocese of Chicago. They got out of the adoption business, and their caseload was immediately picked up by other agencies, including one run by the Lutheran Church.

In Illinois, it was a matter of violating state anti-discrimination laws, which includes sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status. I don't know about anti-discrimination statutes in Pennsylvania, but someone brought up a fairly interesting issue:

Mary Catherine Roper, the Pennsylvania's ACLU's deputy legal director also says giving taxpayer funds to agencies refusing LGBT parents might be unconstitutional.

“A government doesn’t get to use a contractor to implement religious programs and when you start saying, ‘We’re running this as a religious program such that we won’t take you because you don’t fit our religious view,’ then the city is paying for a religious program, and that’s a problem under the First Amendment.”

Can you say "Establishment Clause violation"?

Another day in the sad story of those poor, persecuted "Christians". I'm waiting for Liberty Counsel to jump right on it.

* Interestingly enough, as I recall Catholic Charities was originally founded as an organization under the Church's auspices but as a separate legal entity to avoid church/state conflicts. Strangely enough, when states started legalizing same-sex marriage, it became a "religious organization."

Today's Must-Read: The Kind of Citizens We Need

Tom Sullivan has a really good post at Hullabaloo on why the survivors of the Parkland shooting are turning into such a major force in the debate over gun control. (And it says something about the pathetic state of America that we have a debate on gun control.) I found his first paragraph more than a little humorous:

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) suggested in a tweet Wednesday, "We claim a Judea-Christian heritage but celebrate arrogance & boasting. & worst of all we have infected the next generation with the same disease." That last barb seemed aimed at students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. They returned to school for the first time Wednesday after a mass shooting on Valentine's Day claimed 17 of their classmates.

First off, Senator NRA's $3 million water boy, your "Judea-Christian" [sic] heritage celebrates arrogance and boasting. Read your Bible.

Sullivan quotes extensively from an article by Dahlia Lithwick that's also a must-read.

Sullivan's conclusion is right on the mark:

What upsets Rubio and the Examiner is that Stoneman Douglas students don't know their places. Schools that are preparing students to serve their country rather than the economy are not fulfilling their mission. Their issue with Stoneman Douglas is it is not turning out sheep.

It seems that despite Betsy DeVos' efforts to turn public schools into trade schools, some kids are getting the kind of education I had. We had art, we had music appreciation classes, we had debate (what they called "speech classes" when I was in high school, where we learned how to actually think about what we were saying), we had literature, we had foreign languages (which were a state requirement). And please note that I didn't go to elite private schools -- I went to public schools in a very Republican (back when that meant something besides "fascist") small town.

And Sullivan's right -- that kind of education does not turn out corporate cogs. It turns out trouble-makers -- you know, people like the founders of this country.

Pass the Popcorn

Apparently Franklin Graham's blatant hypocrisy was too much even for some conservatives:

Evangelist Franklin Graham is being criticized for defending President Donald Trump after accusations surfaced that a lawyer for Trump had paid $130,000 to a porn star to keep quiet about an alleged affair.

"I'm afraid I have to stop recommending Samaritan's Purse. The judgment of its leadership raises too many questions," wrote radio host and editor of Resurgent Erick Erickson, on Twitter, responding to Graham's recent interview with MSNBC.

Graham is the president and CEO of Samaritan's Purse as well as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

That's just the tip of the iceberg -- Graham is catching hell from all directions on this one. It's worth reading the whole article.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today's Must-Read: What America Is

It occurred to me while surfing through the news this morning that Trump's whole message, from the beginning of his candidacy and continuing through today, has been completely negative: his appeal is to the worst of us.

Tom Sullivan has a post at Hullabaloo that helps to put it all into perspective.

The #Resistance locks progressives into a confining frame. An energizing one, perhaps, but restrictive nonetheless. With Martin Luther King Jr. Day 2018 behind us and the first anniversary Women's March ahead, and with the next volley from a president dishing red meat for his base coming as surely as the sun rises, perhaps it is time to clarify who we are rather than simply protest what we stand against.

Ed Kilgore offers an anecdote from Rev. William Barber II's book, The Third Reconstruction:

Not long ago I was a guest on Real Time with Bill Maher, with one of America’s most prominent atheists. Wearing my clerical collar, I realized that I stood out among his guests. So I decided to announce to Bill that I, too, am an atheist. He seemed taken aback, so I explained that if we were talking about the God who hates poor people, immigrants, and gay folks, I don’t believe in that God either. Sometimes it helps to clarify our language.

One could say the same about what makes America great. If American greatness means slamming the golden door to fellow human beings, to refugees from places the sitting president considers "shitholes," then I am not an American either.

He goes on from there. I found this particularly tellling, a quote from our last real president:

We are called to better things. The last president, a man not born to wealth or the privilege of whiteness, had a clearer sense of who we are. Nancy LeTourneau excerpts Barack Obama's speech at the Edmund Pettis Bridge:

For we were born of change. We broke the old aristocracies, declaring ourselves entitled not by bloodline, but endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. We secure our rights and responsibilities through a system of self-government, of and by and for the people. That’s why we argue and fight with so much passion and conviction, because we know our efforts matter. We know America is what we make of it.

To finish off, out of order from Sullivan's post, another quote from Rev. William Barber:

Trump is a symptom of a deeper moral malady. And if he was gone tomorrow or impeached tomorrow, the senators and the House of Representatives and Ryan and McConnell and Graham and all them would still be there. And what we have found, Amy, when we look at them, no matter how crazy they call him or names they call him or anger they get with him, it’s all a front, because at the end of the day, they might disagree with his antics, but they support his agenda.

Trump really is a symptom of the moral rot that has infected American conservatism since the days of Ronald Reagan, if not before. And it's not just the Republicans in Congress -- it's the billionaires who own them, who think that their own greed is the guiding force of this country, or should be; it's the "Christian" right whose lust for power has left far behind any claim that they may have once had to being real Christians; it's the small, confused people who live in fear that someone not just like them will take something away from them. I'm sure you have your own candidates for this list. And right now, they're in control.

As always, read the whole thing. It's truly inspiring.

Stenography as "Journalism"

I'm certainly not the first to sound off about this, but this story really points it up:

Florida Senator Marco Rubio admits that the Republican tax cut plan to aid corporations and the wealthy will require cuts to Social Security and Medicare to pay for it.

Rubio told reporters this week that in order to address the federal deficit, which will grow by at least $1 trillion if the tax plan passes, Congress will need to cut entitlement programs such as Social Security. Advocates for the elderly and the poor have warned that entitlement programs would be on the chopping block, but this is the first time a prominent Republican has backed their claims.

OK, we knew that. Republicans have been after Social Security for eighty years, and Medicare almost since it was created. But this is what got me going:

The simple answer is Social Security and Medicare, which together comprise 38 percent of the total federal budget, second only to military spending.

“The driver of our debt is the structure of Social Security and Medicare for future beneficiaries,” said Rubio.

This is total bullshit. Social Security is not part of the federal budget, and neither is Medicare except for administrative costs for Part B.

If you do a search for "social security funding," this is what you get:

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $118,500 (in 2016), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2015, $795 billion (85 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ( $93 billion or 10 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ( $32 billion or 3 percent), and $325 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury - most resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation.

The payroll tax rates are set by law, and for OASI and DI, apply to earnings up to a certain amount. This amount, called the earnings base, rises as average wages increase.

The only funds coming from the General Fund are "reimbursements" -- i.e., paybacks.

Do the same for Medicare:

Medicare Trust Funds

Medicare is paid for through 2 trust fund accounts held by the U.S. Treasury. These funds can only be used for Medicare.

Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
Other sources, like income taxes paid on Social Security benefits, interest earned on the trust fund investments, and Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A

What does it pay for?

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits, collecting Medicare taxes, and combating fraud and abuse

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund

How is it funded?

Funds authorized by Congress
Premiums from people enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) and Medicare prescription drug coverage (Part D)
Other sources, like interest earned on the trust fund investments

What does it pay for?

Part B benefits
Part D
Medicare Program administration, like costs for paying benefits and for combating fraud and abuse.

Even from these summaries, it's obvious that neither Social Security nor Medicare has a large impact on the federal deficit. For that, you need to look to the handouts and tax breaks for millionaires and corporations.

And it would seem that when you're quoting a Republican on Social Security and Medicare (which, by the way, Republicans have spent years equating with welfare, food stamps, etc., as "entitlements" -- the difference being that we pay into SS and Medicare, so you bet your sweet booty we're entitled to something back), some scepticism is in order. That's apparently too much to ask of Newsweek, which goes on to repeat more Republican talking points:

In order to remain solvent, changes do need to be made to entitlement programs. Both Social Security and Medicare programs are on a fiscally unsustainable path — Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted by 2029 and Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted by 2034.

It starts to look less like laziness and more like complicity -- the link is to an "analysis" of the trustees' reports by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. In case you can't quite place the name, this might refresh your memory:

Peter G. Peterson, born June 5, 1926, is a controversial Wall Street billionaire who uses his wealth to underwrite a diversity of organizations and PR campaigns to generate public support for slashing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, citing concerns over "unsustainable" federal budget deficits.

Looks like Newsweek is getting to be as reliable a source as Fox.

There's an easy fix to the "sustainability" issue for Social Security: remove the tax cap. Currently, wages up to $118,500 are subject to FICA; take off the limit and Social Security will be rolling in money.

For Medicare, there's no cap, but the tax is only 1.45 percent each from employee and employer. A small increase -- and I mean small, like .5% -- would ease the strain.

But, back to the main thesis: if this is the kind of crap that passes for journalism in the mainstream media, we are in real trouble.

Today's Must-Read: The Internet For Sale

If FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has his way:

Net-neutrality protections assure that the essential democratic discourse on the World Wide Web cannot be bartered off to the highest bidders of a billionaire class that dominates the political debate on so many other media platforms.

Citizens love net neutrality. “The overwhelming majority of people who wrote unique comments to the Federal Communications Commission want the FCC to keep its current net neutrality rules and classification of ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act,” Ars Technica reported in August. How overwhelming? “98.5% of unique net neutrality comments oppose Ajit Pai’s anti–Title II plan,” read the headline.

The media monopolists of the telecommunications industry hate net neutrality. They have worked for years to overturn guarantees of an open Internet because those guarantees get in their way of their profiteering. If net neutrality is eliminated, they will restructure how the Internet works, creating information superhighways for corporate and political elites and digital dirt roads for those who cannot afford the corporate tolls.

It's part and parcel of Trump's agenda: Dismantle America and hand the pieces over to the "right people."

Read the whole thing. And call your congresscritter.

Via Bark Bark Woof Woof.

In Case You Were Wondering

Who owns the government, this should give you a clue:

The Federal Communications Commission is preparing a full repeal of net neutrality rules that require broadband providers to give consumers equal access to all content on the internet, putting more power in the hands of those companies to dictate people’s online experiences.

Ajit Pai, the chairman of the F.C.C., plans to reveal a sweeping proposal to scrap the net neutrality rules on Tuesday, according to two people familiar with the plan, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the details are not public. The rules, created during the Obama administration, prohibit broadband providers from blocking, slowing down or charging more for the delivery of certain internet content. The proposal will be presented in a December meeting of F.C.C. commissioners and is expected to pass in a 3-to-2 vote along party lines.

Which is a big lollipop for Internet providers (most of which don't offer such great service to begin with). What it means is:

But under a repeal, companies like AT&T and Comcast may be able to charge people higher fees to access certain websites and online services. The companies may also be able to prioritize their own services while disadvantaging websites run by rivals.

It's even more pernicious than it looks on the surface. Read the whole article and get ready to call your congressperson.

Via Joe.My.God.