Today's Must-Read: The Slide Toward Autocracy: A Checklist

Via Digby, this list from Amy Siskind of "Trump atrocities" of the week.

Experts in authoritarianism advise to keep a list of things subtly changing around you, so you'll remember. Here's my list for week 9[.]

Digby just shows this week's list, but has links to the previous eight.

I found this one possibly the most worrisome:

35. Human Rights Watch issued it's annual report of threats to human rights around the world. For the first time in 27 years, the US is listed as a top threat because of the rise of Trump.

Here's Human Rights Watch's article on the 2017 World Report. Just one salient section:

Executive Director Kenneth Roth writes that a new generation of authoritarian populists seeks to overturn the concept of human rights protections, treating rights not as an essential check on official power but as an impediment to the majority will.

“The rise of populism poses a profound threat to human rights,” Roth said. “Trump and various politicians in Europe seek power through appeals to racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and nativism. They all claim that the public accepts violations of human rights as supposedly necessary to secure jobs, avoid cultural change, or prevent terrorist attacks. In fact, disregard for human rights offers the likeliest route to tyranny.”

Roth cited Trump’s presidential campaign in the US as a vivid illustration of the politics of intolerance. He said that Trump responded to those discontented with their economic situation and an increasingly multicultural society with rhetoric that rejected basic principles of dignity and equality. His campaign floated proposals that would harm millions of people, including plans to engage in massive deportations of immigrants, to curtail women’s rights and media freedoms, and to use torture. Unless Trump repudiates these proposals, his administration risks committing massive rights violations in the US and shirking a longstanding, bipartisan belief, however imperfectly applied, in a rights-based foreign policy agenda.

I'm wondering again whether New Zealand is far enough away.

The Truth Slips Outt

Once again, the Hairpiece tells it like it is. Speaking in Colorado -- of course, it was about how the election is going to be stolen from him by election workers destroying ballots they "don't like" -- he came up with this:

Later in his speech, Trump reiterated: "I don't love the concept of ballots."

Now, we already know he doesn't like elections:

Donald Trump suggested today that the election should be canceled and called for him.

Speaking in Ohio, the Republican presidential nominee questioned why the election was even being held, saying that Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's policies are "so bad."

"In just thinking to myself right now, we should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump, right?" he said. "Why are we even having it for? What are we having it for? Her policies are so bad. Boy, do we have a big difference."

Trump is not an outlier among Republicans: they've been trying to de-legitimize our whole system for years, with attacks on the courts, putting fundamental rights up to popular vote, chipping away at women's rights, voting rights, and now marriage rights, to the extent that Trump's statements are the logical next step.

And the scary thing is, a significant number of his supporters are on board with that.

“We are the new GOP!”

And just who might that be? Why, the white supremacists, who have finally come marching out from under their rocks:

White nationalists are working to identify their “top people” — or at least any racist with a college degree — to staff a potential Donald Trump administration.

William Johnson, chairman of the white nationalist American Freedom Party, and other organized racists who back the Republican presidential nominee see a chance to set White House policy if Trump is elected next month, reported The Guardian.

From the Guardian story:

“About three months ago,” Johnson begins, “I was talking to Richard Spencer about how we need to plan for a Trump victory.” Spencer is another prominent white nationalist – he heads the generic-sounding National Policy Institute. “I said: ‘I want Jared Taylor [of American Renaissance] as UN Ambassador, and Kevin MacDonald [an evolutionary psychologist] as secretary of health and Ann Coulter as homeland security!’ And Spencer said: ‘Oh Johnson, that’s a pipe dream!’ But today, he’d no longer say that, because if Trump wins, all the establishment Republicans, they’re gone… They hate him! So who’s left? If we can lobby, we can put our people in there.”

Ann Coulter as homeland security? I would have thought secretary of state.

Take all those comments about angry old white working class men as Trump's base with a big helping of salt. This is where his support is coming from, and given that the younger members are the most extreme -- well, there goes the stereotype. And given his comments on jailing Clinton should he win the White House, you can guess what kind of country Trump and his supporters envision.*

No, I am not going to say the "H" word.

* And don't forget the evangelical bigwigs who are sticking with Trump. Given the histories of the likes of Perkins and Bauer, it's a good fit.

North Carolina: The "Fix" Is In

And what a fix it is. You may recall that no one (except Tony Perkins and the "Christian for Pay" crowd) likes North Carolina's HB2, known variously as the "bathroom bill" and "Hate Bill 2." Well, the NBA has threatened to move the 2017 All Star Game out of the state, so the legislature "fixed" it:

The legislature approved limited changes to House Bill 2 late Friday night, restoring residents’ right to bring claims of discrimination in state courts.

Gov. Pat McCrory had been seeking the action for months. HB2, best known for requiring transgender people in government facilities to use bathrooms matching the gender on their birth certificates, also blocked a path that North Carolinians had to file state-court discrimination claims.

Though lawmakers’ action Friday restores that path, it comes with a statute of limitations shorter than before — one year instead of three years.

That's all they "fixed" -- nothing about bathroom access, or the ability of local governments to pass LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinances, or raise the minimum wage, or anything else that the legislature took away from the people of North Carolina.

And this is choice:

“As we said from the beginning, there was never an intent to limit the right of anybody to seek redress in state court,” House Speaker Tim Moore told reporters.

Then, Speaker Moore, why put in a provision limiting the right of everyone to seek redress in state courts?

This is the first "fix" they came up with:

Draft legislation circulating this week included a proposal to offer “gender reassignment certificates” that would allow transgender people who haven’t changed the gender on their birth certificate to prove they’ve had gender reassignment surgery – and can therefore use the bathroom they prefer.

Malice compounded by ignorance: only about a third of trans folk have surgery; the rest either can't afford it or don't want to take that step (not to mention those who may be mid-transition). And this smacks too much of our rapidly approaching police state: May I see your papers, please?

And it was a complete non-starter with the NBA:

The vote came a day after the NBA and the Charlotte Hornets said they do not support “the version of the bill” that was circulating earlier in the week.

The league reiterated its commitment to its “guiding principles of inclusion, mutual respect and equal protections for all,” and that “constructive engagement with all sides is the right path forward.”

“There has been no new decision made regarding the 2017 NBA All-Star Game,” the statement read.

Moore's response is what one might expect:

Moore responded to the NBA’s comments on Friday. “I certainly hope that the NBA will keep the All-Star Game here,” he said. “The process I don’t think lends itself to (passing) legislation perhaps that they might want to see. I hope that they – and frankly every business that had concerns about discrimination arguments – see fixing this issue with access to state courts as fixing that.”

And of course, they've fixed nothing.

I find it instructive that the NC legislature took no notice of all the businesses -- including major corporations -- that bailed on expansion plans or plans to open new facilities and the like, but when the NBA barked, they noticed. Now it just remains to be seen whether the NBA will follow through, because this "fix" is a joke -- it addresses nothing.

I wish I had enough confidence in the voters of North Carolina to think that they'll boot these assholes out of office in November, but I doubt it: their strength is in the back hills, places like Marion and Sevier and Boone. If the resort areas on the coast and in the mountains start losing business, it might have an effect, but I doubt it.

Oh, and because the state attorney general (a Democrat) has refused to defend the law, the governor has asked the legislature to set aside half a million from the disaster relief fund to hire outside counsel. That's generating the kind of reactions you might expect, from outrage to ridicule ("Even the Governor knows it's a disaster.")

Today's Must-Watch

Frank Schaeffer, in case you didn't know (I didn't), is the man who, with his family, created the "pro-life" movement as a political force. Here's a portion of an interview with Samantha Bee. It's very revealing. (It's also fairly profane, so be warned.)

I realize that I've gotten pretty cynical about the religious right and their motives, but Shaeffer offers this bit of validation: he admits he was in it for the money.

Via Gaius Publius at Hullabaloo.

Today in Gun Safety

Sometimes, as I'm surfing through the news in the morning, I run across stories that comment on each other. Let's start with this, from Digby:

Apparently at least 60 kids under 18 have accidentally killed themselves and or other people already this year. It's a horror story. Here's the latest.

A 2-year-old Indiana boy fatally shot himself Wednesday evening after discovering a gun in his mother’s purse, authorities said.

The boy retrieved the gun when his mother “momentarily stepped away,” leaving her purse on the kitchen counter, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department said in a news release.

I don't think I need to comment on the idea of leaving a loaded gun around where a two-year-old can find it. C'mon, people -- kids get into everything, usually when you're not looking.

Karoli Kuns at Crooks and Liars had the same reaction I did to the "solution" proposed by an NRA apologist:

Mamas, please rush right out and get some toddler-size body armor for your little darlings, because the NRA has decided the best way to avoid getting shot by some lunatic (or responsible gun owner) is to wear body armor.

Your little darling will look adorbs in a size 4T bulletproof vest. I'll bet you can even find one with Hello Kitty on it.

Seriously -- this idiot -- someone named Colion Noir, which has got to be a pseudonym -- is actually suggesting that we all go out and buy body armor to keep from being killed by some 2nd Amendment nutcase. A sample:

Look, if you don’t like guns and want nothing to do with them, you have every right to make less than smart decisions with your life, but I can’t think of a more passive way to protect yourself from being shot than owning body armor. I’m not saying you have to channel your inner 50 Cent and wear a vest general purpose. But have armor in your home or bag, you have nothing to lose. You may not like guns or me for liking guns, but that doesn’t mean I don’t care about your safety.

MediaMatters has a full post. It gets really, really bizarre.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. . . .

So, I'm away from the Internet for five days, and this is what I come back to:

Eric Boehlert of Hillary-friendly Media Matters examines how the media's obsession with Donald Trump has yielded millions in free air time for the billionaire:

We seem to have entered unchartered territory where campaign coverage, at least Trump’s campaign coverage, is based on what’s popular (or what makes money for news outlets), and not based on what’s newsworthy. Casting aside decades of precedent, campaign journalism seems to have almost consciously shifted to a for-profit model.

Boehlert seems to be a little slow on the uptake. Hell, I don't even watch TV and I've seen broadcast media heading in this direction for years.

And it's not only yielded millions in freebies for Trump -- it's translating into millions for the corporate media as well:

As CBS chairman and chief executive Les Moonves told The Hollywood Reporter last month, "It may not be good for America, but it's damn good for CBS.

"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us," he continued, adding that the "money’s rolling in.

Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going."

It gets better:

Writing at The Observer, Ryan Holiday suggested a new paradigm is in play this campaign season:

Politicians have always sought to manipulate the public. What’s changed is that media is now not only a willing co-conspirator, they are often the driving force behind the manipulation. No longer seeing itself as responsible for reporting the truth, for getting the facts to the people, it has instead incentivized a scrum, a wild fight for attention in which anything that attracts an audience is fair game. And as long as theirs is the ring where the fight goes down, they’ll happily sell tickets to as many as will come.

Well, yeah -- can you say "Fox News"?

Digby brings us this:

This has got Fox News all wound up:

CNN’s Fareed Zakaria offered some commentary on his show Sunday about the rise of Donald Trump in the GOP and its similarities to the rise of Islamic extremism.

Zakaria said, “A main cause of the rise of extremism in the world of Islam has been the cowardice of Muslim moderates who, for decades, chose not to condemn bad ideas and ugly rhetoric.”

He believes they made the dire mistake of avoiding the “cancer in plain sight” and there is “a similar dynamic” at play in the conservative world.

Zakaria argued that the very same people trashing Trump these days aided and abetted his rise by, over the years, embracing “the rhetoric and tactic of the extremes.”

Tack this on to the post about who's aiding and abetting, and it's not a pretty picture.

And, from a slightly different angle, the breathless coverage of Sanders' upset in the Michigan primary: Maybe it's just that voters in Michigan know first-hand what it's like when you're living under a corporate-owned government.

Sooner Than I Expected

It was fairly obvious that the "Christian" right would be reacting to the impending Supreme Court opinion on marriage equality -- and at this point, while I hesitate to say that anything with this Court is a foregone conclusion, unless it involves corporate interests, from the weight of Circuit Court opinions and the complete lack of rational justifications for state bans, it does look as though the Court has no option but to find in favor -- I hadn't realized how quickly they would be piling on. The latest is from Oklahoma, with the "Oklahoma Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2015" -- although no one seems to be able to explain why something that has not been taken away needs to be restored. The excuse -- because it sure as hell is not an argument -- is close to what we've been seeing from the "Christian Martyrs"™ who bake cakes and arrange flowers:

Silk told The New York Times in an article published today, that the "L.G.B.T. movement is the main thing, the primary thing that’s going to be challenging religious liberties and the freedom to live out religious convictions."

Forget the fact that the same arguments have been used against every advance in civil rights for every group. See, Sen. Silk is being "sensitive," because he has "homosexual friends." The reactions to that statement have not been kind.

The other prong of the attack that's come into play recently can be found in this bill being considered by the Texas Legislature:

The proposal from GOP Rep. Rick Miller (above) would prohibit cities from enforcing nondiscrimination ordinances that include protected classes not contained in state law.

The Texas Observer reports:

Texas law doesn’t include sexual orientation or gender identity and expression. If passed, Miller’s bill would undo LGBT protections passed by numerous cities, including Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, El Paso, Fort Worth, Houston and Plano. Altogether more than 7.5 million Texas are covered by such ordinances.

Texas is a little behind the gun on this one: a similar law passed in Arkansas late last month.

Matt Baume has a couple of videos on these and other tactics and how to deal with them:

And, last but not least, sue. The courts are our last defense against this sort of thing (which is why Anti-Gay, Inc., hates the idea of an independent judiciary), and my own feeling is that if anything is going to make it obvious that sexual orientation and gender identity and expression should be included in suspect classes, it's this kind of back-door, systematic discrimination written into the law.

Over the Top

This takes batshit crazy to a whole new order of magnitude. From one of the most unhinged figures of Anti-Gay, Inc., Scott Lively (who is facing trial for crimes against humanity):

Regardless of where one stands on Ukraine or Vladimir Putin, just for a moment consider where the pro-family movement would be if it hadn’t been for the Ukraine coup. Russia would still be (relatively speaking) a respected member of the international community offering an alternative, genuinely pro-family model for social policy. There would likely be at least a half-dozen nations which would have adopted the anti-propaganda law for themselves (with many more considering it) and there would be a healthy international debate raging on pro-family vs LGBT visions for the future. I believe the tide would probably have begun to turn in our favor, at least on the global scene, if not yet in the US or EU. Is it really so far-fetched to believe that morally wicked, Imperialistic, Alinsky-ite Obama (credibly alleged to be a homosexual himself) started the Ukrainian civil war to punish Russia for opposing the 'core value' of America, the priority of his State Department? Or (more importantly to the 'gays') to prevent the Russians from leading a pro-family counter-revolution in the world?

If you have any awareness at all of current events, I don't even have to parse this for you.

Via Joe.My.God.

The Persecution Complex

This is the tactic that's been coming more and more to the fore with the right wing, particularly the anti-gay right wing. It starts with the inversion of calling critics of the homophobic right "intolerant," as Alvin McEwen notes with regard to Sen. Marco Rubio:

One of the most transparent tactics opponents of marriage equality will attempt is to claim that supporters of marriage equality are intolerant of their opinion.

It’s not only a transparent tactic but highly cynical. And apparently it’s the tactic that Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida is attempting:

While Rubio has consistently held conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage, his current emphasis appears to be an effort to appeal to social conservatives who have yet to settle on a favored candidate for 2016. “Even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as someone who is a hater or a bigot,” Rubio said.

That's really only the tip of the iceberg. Enzo at Aksarbent links to this article from Right Wing Watch, which is a detailed analysis of the strategy.

The tales of horror keep pouring in: Two middle school girls are forced into a lesbian kiss as part of an anti-bullying program; an Air Force sergeant is fired because he opposes same-sex marriage; a high school track team is disqualified from a meet after an athlete thanks God for the team’s victory; a Veterans Affairs hospital bans Christmas cards with religious messages; a man fixing the lights in a Christmas tree falls victim to a wave of War-on-Christmas violence; an elementary school student is punished for praying over his school lunch; a little boy is forced to take a psychological evaluation after drawing a picture of Jesus.

None of these stories is true. But each has become a stock tale for Religious Right broadcasters, activists, and in some cases elected officials. These myths – which are becoming ever more pervasive in the right-wing media – serve to bolster a larger story, that of a majority religious group in American society becoming a persecuted minority, driven underground in its own country.

This narrative has become an important rallying cry for a movement that has found itself on the losing side of many of the so-called “culture wars.” By reframing political losses as religious oppression, the Right has attempted to build a justification for turning back advances in gay rights, reproductive rights and religious liberty for minority faiths.

We've seen this coming, first with the cries of "persecution" from the usual suspects when people in business -- photographers, bakers, etc. -- try to use their "deeply held religious beliefs" as a pretext for flouting anti-discrimination laws. It's a tantrum over the loss of privilege turned into a political strategy, and the next stage in the "Christian" right's ongoing war against everyone else. And I mean everyone, not only gays, lesbians, and trans people, but women (Hobby Lobby, anyone?), Muslims (the whole Ground Zero mosque flap and the Murfreesboro Islamic Center case, including claims that Islam is not a religion), and refugee children from Central America (see this post from Digby for some history of this attitude -- it's not a new thing).

Before you start parsing, the "Christian" right is the Tea Party is the Republican Party. And their heroes are crazy. (Michele Bachmann is the classic case, but just pick a Republican 2016 presidential hopeful at random and you'll find any number of equally bizarre statements.)

And as they lose more and more ground among the majority of Americans the rhetoric gets more and more shrill and it becomes more and more apparent what disgusting people they are. (Who was it who said, regarding yet another school shooting, that "Your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights"? Hint: he wasn't a liberal.)

And they complain of being persecuted.

A Little Catch-up

It's been a busy week. Here are a few things I didn't get to:

India:

You may have heard that the Indian Supreme Court has recriminalized homosexuality. What they did was to overturn the decision of the Delhi High Court from a couple of years ago that found Section 377, from the old British Colonial penal code, is unconstitutional. The decision has not been met favorably, either outside of India or within. The government has filed a petition with the Court for review of the verdict. One Indian actor, Imran Khan, has answered some of the myriad of questions that have arisen in the wake of the decision:

Utah:

It looks as though things in Utah are stalled. The courts -- both Judge Shelby of the District Court and a panel of the 10th Circuit -- have refused to order a stay on Judge Shelby's decision overturning Utah's anti-marriage constitution amendment. The state has said it will petition Justice Sotomayor, who oversees the 10th Circuit, but they seem to be in some disarray and haven't, as of this writing, filed yet. Josh Marshall has a good recap of the events and their implications.

And Utah has had a record number of marriages in the past week.

Uganda:

The Ugandan Parliament has passed the "Kill the Gays" bill, without the kill part. President Musveni has said he will examine it carefully before he decides whether to sign it into law. Jim Burroway has an analysis of the sneaky tactics of the proponents of the bill, which sounds about right for the anti-gay "conservatives" of any country. Burroway also has a look at the reaction of Ugandan religious leaders. I advise you to read it on an empty stomach.

Papa Duck:

That millionaire nonentity from that A&E "reality" show has been reinstated -- yes, A&E, like Cracker Barrel before them, has caved. Joe Jervis has a series of posts on the reactions this morning, which I'm not going to link to here -- just go to his blog.

Ender's Game:

A flop, no matter how you look at it:

Note that box office as of Thursday is $88,065,750 worldwide. Note also the budget figure. I don't think a sequel is in the offing.

OK, this turned into a link dump -- sorry about that, but like I said, it's been a busy week. This should serve to catch you up on anything you've missed.

Backfire

Here's a choice video of Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Lipton's) confronting a Park ranger at the WWII memorial. She keeps her cool.

Notice how he cuts and runs when someone in the crowd confronts him over his hypocrisy.

And the comments at YouTube are scathing.

Update on Sochi

Not that there's anything really new -- just more horror stories, and more posturing. John Aravosis has pulled together some of the most pertinent stories, so I don't have to. A couple of the comments I left there, in response to other commenters:

". . . who could have forseen the IOC so publicly, club-footedly and unnecessarily caving in to them?"

Anyone who's paid attention to the IOC for the last thirty years. I'm reminded that when everyone and his brother was starting "(Insert Category Here) Olympics," the only group the IOC sued was the organizers of the Gay Olympics, which is why we now have the Gay Games. I don't expect the ball-less wonders at the IOC to stand up for human rights -- I expect them to clutch their pearls and worry about their "brand." If they pulled their heads out of their behinds for a minute, they might just realize that this is damaging their brand more than anything else they could do, but they don't have that kind of perspective.

and

"Back here in the States, the haters are cheering what Russia's been doing."

Birds of a feather.

And that is not just name-calling. Look at the similarities between the attitudes and rhetoric of the Russians and the professional gay-bashers in this country. I ran across a story a bit ago that Scott Lively was claiming credit for the "gay propaganda" law in Russia. (He "advised" them to adopt that sort of measure; and of course, we all know Scott Lively has the clout to advise countries on their domestic policies.) They have in common an authoritarian mindset and a need for an "enemy" to justify their activities, if not their very existence. (I'm not going to go into Godwin territory, but you can connect the dots.)

Some troll jumped in, unfortunately, the kind who thinks every post on every blog should reflect his priorities, so most of the comments are responses to him, which is silly. Jerks like that just want the attention.

Sunday Grab Bag

Low energy week, but I thought I'd do a little catch-up on things that caught my eye.

First off, this morning, via Joe.My.God., this item -- the headline says it all:

Study: Belief in an angry God associated with variety of mental illnesses

Please note, however, that the researcher stresses that the study is examining correlation, not causation.

Speaking of correlations, check out this segment of Bill Maher's Real Time. I can't find the embed code for the video, so watch it at the link.

Maher remarked that it’s amazing how people think they can get away with anything when there is such a wide array of surveillance, and remarked that the reason the Boston bombers did not kill themselves is probably because they “don’t have the balls” of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Maher asked if the U.S. needs to be more like Israel in its response to terrorism, by just dealing with it effectively and then moving on as if nothing happened.

Maher also threw out this observation.

“Isn’t the takeaway here that there are many bad things that can happen in the world, for many bad reasons, but the winner and still champ is religion?”

Holmes pointed to Newtown as not being religiously-motivated, pointing to a warped psychology as a more important motivator of people who seek to terrorize and kill others. She found it odd that one of the bombers, after living in America for ten years, didn’t have a single American friend.

(Emphasis added.)

I didn't post about Boston because it was just too difficult to figure out what was actually happening -- news outlets reporting random tweets like they had some validity? Please -- and by the time I could figure out what was happening, it was over.

The usual suspects were out in full force on that one, too. This is sort of typical, a retweet by Gay Patriot, via Joe.My.God.:

Charles Johnson has a good sampling of Pamela Geller's bile at Little Green Footballs. That woman is really sick.

On the other hand, the President:

"When a tragedy like this happens … it's important that we do this right. That's why we have investigations. That's why we relentlessly gather the facts. That's why we have courts," he said. "That's why we take care not to rush to judgment -- not about motivations of individuals, certainly not about entire groups of people."

And Tony Perkins is trying desperately to remain relevant:

In the aftermath of horrible tragedies like Newtown, the government desperately wants to do something–even if that something is the wrong thing. There seems to be this notion, at least among liberals, that more laws will protect us–but as we all witnessed in Boston, that isn’t necessarily the case. The government can’t make us safer until it recognizes that the problem isn’t the instruments of violence–but the environment of it. Stronger background checks wouldn’t have prevented the deaths of three people at the finish line on Monday, any more than it would have stopped Floyd Corkins from walking into our lobby and shooting Leo Johnson.

If Congress wants to stop these tragedies, then it has to address the government’s own hostility to the institution of the family and organizations that can address the real problem: the human heart. As I’ve said before, America doesn’t need gun control, it needs self-control. And a Congress that actively discourages it–through abortion, family breakdown, sexual liberalism, or religious hostility–is only compounding the problem.

Anyone who thinks Perkins gives a damn about the human heart is living in a fantasy world. However, we may be getting a glimpse of his next target, now that the gay-bashing gig is bottoming out:

Of course, some will say–and I agree–that transforming the culture is the church’s job. But that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place at the table for Christians in the gun debate. Not only did Jesus tolerate weapons, he instructed His disciples to buy them! In Luke 22:36, we read, “He said to them… if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus did rebuke Peter for being too quick on the draw (John 18:11), recognizing that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal-but spiritual.

Why do I think that there's a substantial overlap between Second Amendment freaks and white supremacists (and don't forget, that's how Perkins got his start in politics)?

Speaking of gun control, how about our shining examples of leadership in the Senate? John Stewart has a very good analysis:

And John Oliver picks up the thread in this segment:

The comedy in this one comes from Van Cleave trying to make a coherent argument -- the man's a moron.

And how typical would it be for Perkins to jump from one losing cause to another?

That's enough for this morning -- at the rate I'm discovering insanity in the news, this post could go on forever, but I'll give you a break. But let's leave on a bright note: Rio de Janeiro has become the tenth Brazilian state to recognize same-sex marriages.

Looks like a nice place for a wedding.

(And note:  I figured out how to resize photos!  Yay!)

And I < 3 Rachel Maddow (Updated; Updated Again)

Via Crooks and Liars:

I can't add to Maddow's comments except to say that she is correct on every count. Nothing demonstrates the Democrats' essential ballessness at this point than their reactions to BS from Fox and the right.

Here's an AP article on the state of the game now.

Biggovernment.com is Andrew Breitbart's site, the one that managed, through the same tactics, to sink ACORN. Jeebus, people, we know that Breitbart's a liar and that Fox deals in propaganda, not journalism. WTF?

Backstory from Karoli at C&L: same conclusions, more detail. Included is the unedited video that Breitbart wishes were under lock and key -- although I guess it doesn't really matter now -- he's done his damage.

Update: More "he said/she said" reporting from WaPo. Notice what they don't point up in the article: that everyone knows that Andrew Breitbart is a liar specializing in heavily edited videotapes, and that Fox News uses his stuff for propaganda purposes. Of course, I don't expect them to couch it in those terms, but there might be some acknowledgment of the realities, one would think.

But I guess that reality doesn't apply in the Village.

Update II: Another follow-up from C&L: apparently Fox and Breitbart are getting some pushback from the (other) corporate media. They must smell blood.

I really, really hope Shirley Sherrod has grounds to sue Andrew Breitbart and Fox, and that she does it, for everything she can get.

And as far as the administration is concerned, this has been a major fuck-up. The W political team are obviously incompetent and impotent: they can't do anything right. When will those people learn not to dirty themselves when Republicans say "Boo!"?

We need more Alan Graysons.

It's Not Just Ignorance

Very interesting post at Mahablog that starts off with climate change deniers and goes some very interesting places:

For many, faithfulness to the doctrine of climate change denial is an integral part of their ideological tribal loyalty, and tribal loyalty in turn is part of self-definition. A threat to the doctrines of the tribe is experienced as a threat to oneself. Admitting to the truth would bring on a massive existential crisis. So the more evidence for climate change, the more angrily, and frantically, they will denounce it. . . .

At the Guardian, Sue Blackmore writes about the often-noted correlation between high levels of religiosity and societal dysfunction — the “strong positive correlations between nations’ religious belief and levels of murder, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and other indicators of dysfunction.”

The 1st world nations with the highest levels of belief in God, and the greatest religious observance are also the ones with all the signs of societal dysfunction. These correlations are truly stunning. They are not “barely significant” or marginal in any way. Many, such as those between popular religiosity and teenage abortions and STDs have correlation coefficients over 0.9 and the overall correlation with the SSS is 0.7 with the US included and 0.5 without. These are powerful relationships. But why?

These results don’t necessarily show causality. Does religiosity cause dysfunction, or do people cling to religiosity as a way to cope with dysfunction? We see here in the U.S. that the “Bible belt” states long have had the highest rates of divorce, teen pregnancy, etc. Where is cause and where is effect?

Good question, but I think the part about ideology and identity comes very close to pinning it down: religious belief and ideology are not necessarily entirely separate phenomena, and as Maha goes on to point out, religious belief in this country often translates into religiosity:

I am using the word “religiosity” rather than “religion” because I think much of what passes for religion in America is really superstition (I make a distinction between religion and superstition at the other blog). The overwhelmingly Christian hyper-religious of America on the whole are remarkably ignorant of basic Christian doctrine. Few can recite the Ten Commandments if put on the spot, and I suspect most wouldn’t recognize the Sermon on the Mount if they bumped into it outside of church. Instead, much of the country is infested with a social pathology in which religious totems — the cross, the Bible, tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments — get mixed together with extremist political beliefs and magical thinking to create a toxic and impenetrable ignorance.

She is not the first to note the appalling ignorance of so many Christians about the basics of Christ's teachings, or for that matter the whole of the strictures in Leviticus. For my own part, I can't confess to any great surprise that when people don't know the basics of their own religion, they are so easily swayed into perverting its message.

The heartbreaking thing is that most of these people don't want to do better. They have their validation from their gurus and the reinforcement of their identity as teabaggers or whatever, and that's sufficient. I will confess that I don't understand the attitude -- it's incomprehensible to me that anyone would not want to learn something new or sample different points of view. If you don't give yourself that experience, how can you expect to judge what is right for you, much less for your society? And how can you hope to avoid becoming a dupe for some snake-oil salesman?

At any rate, read that post, and do follow her links -- it's worth it.

The Pedophilia Smear

This is one that crops up regularly, either explicitly or implicitly, in what passes for "discourse" on the right. This particular episode was brought on by this post by Timothy Beauchamp at AmericaBlog Gay. This is Bill Donohue, "Mr. Catholic," preaching to the choir on the 700 Club, if you can stand it



(Looks like the video has disappeared again. I'm not going to do somersaults to try to fix it. Beauchamp has it imbedded as well -- maybe.) (Strangely enough, it shows up when I preview the post, but not when I post it. Maybe it will come back on its own.)

From Beauchamp:

"The Catholic Church has a homosexual problem, not a pedophilia problem..." -Bill Donohue

Uh, the Catholic Church is experiencing the insidious results of repressing human sexuality in all its consensual adult STRAIGHT and gay diversity. The absolutely unacceptable sickness of pedophilia is the result of that repression, Bill. Of course, to allow someone to make that kind of statement on their network, without challenging it, makes CBN culpable in spreading hateful lies about the LGBT community.

To expect CBN to treat gays fairly is on the verge of fantasy. No, wait -- it's there. Donohue, of course, is going to get no objections to his rant from this group. Don't expect anything rational there.

Beauchamp makes one error in his post, which I called attention to in the comments:

Anyone for schooling Bill on the percentage of gay to straight pedophiles? It hovers right around 10%. Pedophilia is an equal opportunity sickness affecting both the gay and straight community in the same ratio in which we naturally exist, and the Catholic Church has a PEDOPHILIA problem.

The actual figure for pedophiles with a same-sex (male/male) adult sexual orientation seems to hover between 1.5-3%, making us underrepresented as against our percentage of the general population (which I'm taking as around 5%, based on studies indicating 3-6%). Jim Burroway has an exhaustive post on the subject here, extensively documented with (gasp!) real studies, which is not something you're going to find Bill Donohue using.

The psychology behind this right-wing conflation of gay men and pedophiles is not hard to figure out. Aside from the obvious propaganda/fear-mongering value ("Save the children!"), as Burroway points out there is a basis for honest confusion, stemming at least in part from the way researchers use the term "homosexual." (It's somewhat kin to the way scientists use the word "theory" and the way creationists use it.) His commentary is worth reading, because it is exhaustive, it's based in reality, and it's full of ammunition against the likes of Bill Donohue and Pope Whats-His-Name XVI (who, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and the whole pedophilia scandal in the Church broke wide open, immediately blamed it on the gays.)

I did some digging in my own archives on this subject, and ran across some interesting reading on child sexual abuse, homosexuality, and the age of consent in an article titled "Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse: Science, Religion, and the Slippery Slope" by Mark E. Pietrzyk:

Executive Summary

In response to the scandal involving former Congressman Mark Foley, a number of conservative religious groups have claimed that homosexuals pose a substantially greater risk of committing sexual abuse against children than heterosexuals, and have issued papers citing a number of scientific studies to support these claims. However, when one examines the studies cited in these papers, one finds that the religious right has engaged in some serious distortion of the works of others. The scientists who authored the studies made no such claim about homosexuals posing a greater threat to children, and in fact in many cases argued the opposite.

In addition, many in the religious right have employed a version of the “slippery slope” argument, charging that the gay rights movement has led inevitably to tolerance for pedophilia by eroding all traditional norms of sexual behavior. However, the “slippery slope” argument is based on the false premise that the protection of children from sexual activity is a long-standing part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which has only recently come under assault as a result of the gay rights movement. In fact, throughout most of history, the Judeo-Christian tradition tolerated and even approved of sexual relations between adult males and girls of twelve years of age or even younger. The contemporary taboo against sex between adults and minors developed only in the late nineteenth century, as societies became increasingly committed to the ideals of individual rights and personal autonomy, which led to concern about the possibility of coercion and exploitation in adult-minor relationships.

I also ran across this bit from an old post of mine (regrettably, in a previous incarnation of this blog; no links are available, but I did quote A. N. Groth and H. J. Birnbaum, also cited by Burroway above):

"A random sample of 175 males convicted of sexual assault against children was screened with reference to their adult sexual orientation and the sex of their victims. The sample divided fairly evenly into two groups based on whether they were sexually fixated exclusively on children or had regressed from peer relationships. Female children were victimized nearly twice as often as male children. All regressed offenders, whether their victims were male or female children, were heterosexual in their adult orientation. There were no examples of regression to child victims among peer-oriented, homosexual males. The possibility emerges that homosexuality and homosexual pedophilia may be mutually exclusive and that the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male." (Emphasis added.)

Other studies have pretty much confirmed this conclusion. Overall, the percentage of child molesters who are adult gay men seems to be no more than 3%. (This is borne out not only by scientific studies, but by the FBI's figures, as well.)

Another note from that early post: most of the "numerous studies" cited by anti-gays as supporting their outrageous claims are the result of the fevered imagination of Paul Cameron, who is a well-known laughingstock in scientific circles, having been kicked out of or censured by every professional organization to which he claimed membership. He now publishes in his own "peer-reviewed" journal. The peer is his equally whacked-out son.

I'm addressing this issue again because the scare mantra is still being used, although it's now laregely become code. That's what forms the core of the attacks on Kevin Jennings, including the letter from 53 Republican House members, and the concern about "education" in the most recent anti-marriage ads in Maine, not to mention the Catholic hierarchy's repeated attempts to deflect criticism of its handling of its own moral lapses.

I may come back to this later, but I have a very full day, and I figure this is enough to get you started.

Pajamas, Cheetos, and Other Distinguishing Marks

Full disclosure: I haven't worn pajamas since I was fifteen years old. Shocked the hell out of my father the first time he realized it -- but after that, he always knocked before he came into my room.

I used to like Cheetos (one of my favorite why the hell not? pig-out foods), but I can't eat them any more. Ditto chicharones and potato chips -- my stomach rebels. I've gotten too thoroughly conditioned to fresh fruit and vegetables as snacks.

With that out of the way, I'd like to address a couple of reactions to the reactions to the "internet leftist fringe" remark, since stoutly disavowed by the White House, both of the "why'nt you all grow up?" variety.

First, from Jim Burroway, this comment:

An NBC reporter quoted an anonymous source with an axe to grind — who is it? Chief of staff? Press Secretary? Electrician? — and bloggers go off the deep end fulfilling every blogging stereotype. Take a deep breath. I know people are frustrated with the slow pace of change with this president. I am too. But if an anonymous minion complains that bloggers are acting like cry-babies throwing temper tantrums, one doesn’t exactly counter that image by throwing a temper tantrum. We’ve all been called names before on the playground. Sheesh!

I think Burroway's overstating his case just a bit -- he starts off his post by noting "Aravosis shrieks" before quoting him, and frankly, Aravosis was no more over the top than he usually is -- in fact, a little less. As I pointed out in my update to the previous post on this, there are some questions I have about this whole thing, starting with "Did Harwood actually have a source?" (It wouldn't be the first time that a story got legs based on nothing.) And the White House has been coming out with statements disavowing previous statements (or not, depending on their mood, I guess) almost since day one.

There are also a couple of commentaries from John Cole that build to an interesting climax. The first is about the stump speech:

I understand that may not be as cathartic as knee-capping your own guy while chanting “just words,” but it might be more productive. And it isn’t settling. It isn’t telling you to shut up or relax or be patient. It is telling you that working to change the status quo is more productive than hurting your own team, even though throwing eggs and making farty sounds with your armpit is more fun.

I have to point out one thing here: there is a split in the gay movement, and it is a deep and serious difference, and that is between the people who are out there working to change the status quo and those who have steadfastly counseled "wait" -- and it's this latter group that the president is willing to speak to. The rest of us are, I think, getting quite justifiably impatient. We're not looking for catharsis, we're looking for action.

The second stems from the furor surrounding the "fringe leftist" remark:

I doubt it, but hopefully this will stop the insanity:

“That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.”

You’re good enough, you’re smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. Now that we have our daily affirmations out of the way, can we stop lobbing grenades at each other? Hug it out, bitches.

I'm going to point out one thing I think these two commentaries have in common, whch is actually something that disturbs me a little: as in the Village, every item inhabits its own universe, and has no contact with any other.

(I'd also like to point out something that relates to the original comments by Harwood, but not directly to these comments by Cole and Burroway, but still serves to fuzz the issue: did anyone else notice how the LGBT and allied demonstrators yesterday have suddenly become the "internet fringe left"? Not to mention those of us who have been critical of Obama and the "establishment" gay rights groups. Somehow, I can't really think of John Aravosis, Andrew Sullivan, Pam Spaulding, or even Jane Hamsher (not to mention myself) as "fringe left.")

Unfortunately for that doctrine, there are some of us who do connect the dots, and who remember previous and too similar situations, starting with the infamous motion for dismissal, known in blogger shorthand as "the DOMA brief." (Word is that the president had not seen the brief before it was filed and was not happy. I have to ask -- doesn't anyone in the DoJ have any idea what's acceptable to this president? Were they all asleep?) This was supposed to be assuaged by inviting a select group to the signing of an executive memorandum (not, mind you, an executive order, which remains in force until specifically rescinded, but an executive memorandum, which expires when this presidency does) guaranteeing some benefits for gay government employees and their partners that were already available -- but not including anything that might even remotely be construed as a benefit of marriage, like health insurance or pension benefits. And meanwhile, we've seen action in Congress when we've been able to find someone -- interestingly enough, usually someone fairly new to the Village -- to go to bat for us.

I'm going to hold up one glaring example of what I think has been typical of this administration on gay issues. Here's a bit from Jim Burroway on repeal of DADT:

This is David Morgan characterizing CBS News Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson’s description of the administration’s prioritization of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.

John Dickerson says the message from the administration is: Don’t hold your breath.

The indication from the White House is they want to show the president is still committed to this, but that it’s further down on the list of priorities,” Dickerson told “Early Show” anchor Harry Smith. “He’s got a lot in front of him, and the big question is how much political capital he’ll put behind this. Will he pressure Congress? Will he pressure the Pentagon?

“There’s just no indication right now that he’s going to spend his political capital in that way.”

This didn’t come from a White House Staffer, named or unnamed. It’s Morgan’s summation of Dickerson’s observations, which is consistent with what we’ve seen so far. No political capital.

I'd like to ask what political capital has to be expended on legislation that is supported by clear majorities in every demographic you can think of -- except retired right-wing generals. I mean, FTLOP, 58% of Republicans support repeal of DADT.

Burroway quotes an AP item in the last post he links to above:

President Barack Obama will focus “at the right time” on how to overturn the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on gays serving openly in the military, his national security adviser said Sunday.

When is the "right time"? Does he think Elaine Donnelley is going to have a hissy fit? WTF?

OK -- now can I connect a few more dots? Think about the clear majority of Americans supporting health-care reform legislation with a good, strong public option. This has been a fairly stable number all along. And guess what's likely to be stripped from any bill that passes. Yes, you're right.

Which leads to the not-so-startling conclusion that it's been a while since anyone in the Village (and this includes the government, first and foremost) gave a shit what anyone outside the Village thinks.

I guess we don't go to the right cocktail parties.

Update:

Glenn Greenwald tackles this one as only he can do it. One point that had occurred to me:

Greg Sargent reports that the White House, on the record, is denying that the anonymous comment reflects their view of blogs and the gay protesters. Did anyone expect them to do anything else? Greg also says that the White House has taken steps which show that they recognize the importance of blogs. That's true; they're willing to harness the power of blogs to help advance the President's agenda, and that's smart. But the issue is how they view criticisms from Democrats and the left of the President, not whether they're willing to use blogs to support Obama.

I was thinking of doing an addendum myself this morning pointing out that, like everyone else in Washington, Obama wants to control the Internet. He, however, doesn't want to regulate it -- he just wants to use his "bully pulpit" to enforce his message on the blogosphere. Got news for ya -- the Internet isn't like that. That's its value.

Backtracking aa bit, Greenwald also starts connecting some dots, in more detail than I did:

In the updates to her post about all of this last night, Pam Spaulding notes with exasperation the excuses and denials flying around everywhere, with all sorts of people expressing doubt that anyone in the Obama White House could possibly be capable of such an ugly sentiment, particularly in light of the President's eloquent, on-the-record commitment to gay equality (other than marriage). As is true for all instances of reckless and petty uses of anonymity like this, it's impossible to know how reflective it is of administration sentiment generally -- was this a senior White House official or some obscure low-level aide? -- but how could anyone who has paid any attention at all to the way Washington functions be doubtful that this sentiment is pervasive or find this at all unusual?

Just this weekend, a "top gay Democrat close to Obama" was granted anonymity by Politico to dismiss administration critics on gay issues as "naive." Just six weeks ago, an equally cowardly "senior White House adviser" hiding behind anonymity told told The Washington Post that the only people who cared about the public option in health care were "the left of the left" -- those same fringe, irrational extremists. In June, an anonymous "friend of John Brennan's" told Jane Mayer in The New Yorker that the people who prevented Brennan's nomination as CIA Director (because of his support for some of the most radical Bush Terrorism policies) were nothing more than "a few Cheeto-eating people in the basement working in their underwear who write blogs." Last year, "Democrats on the Hill" anonymously dismissed opposition to telecom immunity and warrantless eavesdropping as nothing more than a fringe issue being exploited by Chris Dodd for his presidential campaign, and then anonymously warned Dodd to abandon his left-wing obstructionism if he wanted to resume good standing in the Democratic caucus. Can anyone miss the pattern?

So we have a contingent that's criticizing "The Left" for criticizing Obama based on one incident while refusing to see the pattern that is quite obvious to anyone with a memory reaching back farther than fifteen minutes.

The Trouble With Conservatism

Barbara O'Brien has a nice, clear explication:

The problem with conservatism is that, when taken to extremes and logical outcomes, it turns into a nasty, brutish thing that destroys everything it touches. And the problem with the Republican Party is that, in the 1970s, it was infiltrated and taken over by hard-core ideologues who were determined to take the GOP and the rest of the country to those extremes and logical outcomes.

And once the extremists had complete control of all branches of government, with no effective counterweights, they proceeded to destroy everything they touched.

You can argue — hell, I’ve argued — that any ideology, taken to extremes, will implode and self-destruct. Ideology is a bit like medicine; a bigger dose is not necessarily a better dose. One pill every four hours might cure you, but four pills every one hour might kill you.

I really have nothing to add, save to observe that my own political philosophy is somewhat like Eliza crossing the ice: it's a constant dance from there to there as issues arise and need to be addressed, moderated by my own tendency to err on the side of compassion. I take care of people (and critters, too, but the focus here is on people). It's just something I do. I think government should do the same thing, but avoid smother love, which is why I have distinct reservations about liberal "solutions": they meet half the problem.

The best example is my reaction to poverty: yes, give people a safety net, which is what welfare was intended to be, and which conservatives don't want even to discuss, but also give them the means -- the education, the skills, the motivation -- to become self-reliant, which the liberal solution didn't address.

That's why I think any sane politician, of which there are vanishingly fiew, has to be half-and-half. It's called "pragmatism."

Stray thought: I'd like to get Grover Norquist small enough to fit in a bathtub.