David Badash has a nice commentary at The New Civil Rights Movement on Tony Perkins' latest attack in response to yet another poll that shows that most Americans (and that's "real" Americans, Tony) support same-sex marriage.
Tony Perkins, the homophobic, hate-mongering president of the certified hate group, the Family Research Council, is grasping at straws over Gallup’s latest poll on same-sex marriage, the sixth nationwide poll to show that a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage.
Perkins wrote via Twitter — which, evidently, is now the place to defend your hate — that, “If Gallup polling guides SCOTUS on marriage, (as it did with Blackmun’s Roe decision), decision could become a deep wound in our nation,” and that “[o]n Gallup’s #marriage poll, it should be noted that same-sex “marriage” was used, not gay “marriage”, homosexual, etc. Words have meaning.”
Yes, they do, and "same-sex marriage" is perfectly correct -- there's nothing particularly gay about marriage, even if the married couple are two men or two women -- that doesn't affect the meaning of the word.
The delicious part of this is that the more shrill and hateful Perkins and his allies get, the more normal people realize that they're a bunch of charlatans. And no one likes seeing someone get that desperate -- it's embarrassing.
So my recommendation to Tony and Maggie and the Peters (both of them) and the rest is simply, "Keep up the good work -- you're winning us allies."
Monday, May 23, 2011
Totally Fascinating
This is a picture of two volcanic plumes on Jupiter's moon, Io, which is interesting enough itself, but what struck me is there's this whole world there, with what look like oceans and continents and the whole works.
I realize it's a composite image, and the colors are probably slightly exaggerated, but it's also beautiful.
I needed something to cheer me up today.
I realize it's a composite image, and the colors are probably slightly exaggerated, but it's also beautiful.
I needed something to cheer me up today.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Kudos to NYT
For this series, which is long overdue.
“The amount of attention that has been given to debates over L.G.B.T. issues in the last year is another sign of how deeply American society remains divided over L.G.B.T. issues,” said George Chauncey, a Yale University professor of 20th century United States history and lesbian and gay history, referring to lesbians and gay, bisexual and transgender people. “And it has made it clear to young people just how much opposition remains.”
The New York Times embarked on the project “Coming Out,” which begins Monday, as an effort to better understand this generation’s realities and expectations, and to give teenagers their own voice in this conversation.
This is going to have a two-fold benefit, at least: one, the stories will get out there, the realities will start to hit people's consciousness, and two, these kids are going to become real people to too many who are used to thinking of us as an abstraction.
The third benefit is that the religious right is going to hemorrage bile, which will bring home just how sleazy they are.
It's a win-win.
“The amount of attention that has been given to debates over L.G.B.T. issues in the last year is another sign of how deeply American society remains divided over L.G.B.T. issues,” said George Chauncey, a Yale University professor of 20th century United States history and lesbian and gay history, referring to lesbians and gay, bisexual and transgender people. “And it has made it clear to young people just how much opposition remains.”
The New York Times embarked on the project “Coming Out,” which begins Monday, as an effort to better understand this generation’s realities and expectations, and to give teenagers their own voice in this conversation.
This is going to have a two-fold benefit, at least: one, the stories will get out there, the realities will start to hit people's consciousness, and two, these kids are going to become real people to too many who are used to thinking of us as an abstraction.
The third benefit is that the religious right is going to hemorrage bile, which will bring home just how sleazy they are.
It's a win-win.
I'm Still Here, You're Still Here
Some wag suggested leaving piles of clothes scattered around last evening. I sort of like that idea, and might have done it, but my neighborhood is so leftist and so secular that people wouldn't have understood it. Besides, it probably would have scared the children.
I have to wonder, though, about the kind of person who would feel such joy at the idea that they and those who are just exactly like them are going to be "saved" and everyone else is going to suffer torments. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as terribly Christian.
As for the guy who blew his life savings on billboards, I'm sorry to sound uncharitable, but he's an idiot.
So, we have managed to survive the end of the world yet again. I guess there's cause for relief in that. The downside is, this means I have to do laundry.
I have to wonder, though, about the kind of person who would feel such joy at the idea that they and those who are just exactly like them are going to be "saved" and everyone else is going to suffer torments. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as terribly Christian.
As for the guy who blew his life savings on billboards, I'm sorry to sound uncharitable, but he's an idiot.
So, we have managed to survive the end of the world yet again. I guess there's cause for relief in that. The downside is, this means I have to do laundry.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Rapture
Well, it's 5:46 pm Chicago time, so I've either got 14 minutes or it's not going to happen.
I mean, there's supposed to be an earthquake, right? Shouldn't there be some preliminary signs? A few rumbles here and there? A sense of the earth shifting? A heavenly chorus? Something?
Meh. See you tomorrow.
I mean, there's supposed to be an earthquake, right? Shouldn't there be some preliminary signs? A few rumbles here and there? A sense of the earth shifting? A heavenly chorus? Something?
Meh. See you tomorrow.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Public Schools, Private Schools
Excellent post by Freddie deBoer at Balloon Juice on the thinking behind "choice" and school vouchers.
I said before that I think part of the point is not merely to hurt public education in order to move towards a privatized system, but also to erode the foundations of pluralistic society. I think that’s a big part of this. Public education is, at its heart, a radical and beautiful idea. It’s not merely that everyone should have access to education, and that we should all pay for it. It’s the idea that children from across class, racial, ethnic, and other boundaries can come together and work and learn together. They don’t merely learn the knowledge and skills that school teaches them, but how to operate in a democracy where everyone is not alike. Seeing that a multicultural, pluralistic society can work—not perfectly, not without angst, not without effort—is an essential part of a civic education. And that knowledge contributes to the understanding that society is a supporter of individual flourishing, not a threat to it, and that what ultimately benefits the individual is what benefits all of us. Urban people tend to be more liberal in part because they see every day the necessity of people working together to provide for the common welfare, which often means effective government. That in part is what vouchers threaten, as they contribute to the division of children into smaller and smaller subsections where they lack the ability to meaningfully interact with others from across the broad American range of difference, and to see the necessity of shared sacrifice.
“We’re all in this together” is a fundamental liberal insight. It’s everyone’s right to send their children off to private school for whatever reason they see fit, and many do so for exclusively enlightened motives. But to say that the public is obligated to pay for it, without real accountability and absent any meaningful evidence of superior outcomes, is nuts.
At one point he discusses the fact that no one would consider a voucher system for things like public transportation or defense spending, but we're already seeing that starting to happen: the Ryan plan for Medicare, which is, undoubtedly, a voucher system, using taxpayer funds to pay for private insurance. (And also, by the way, inserting a middle-man between the payer (the government, which is to say, us) and the provider, the same broken system we have now in health-care coverage in general.)
Read the whole thing. It's clear-eyed and very intelligent, although one point he makes that needs further emphasis: you have every right to have your child educated in private schools. You have no right to take my money to pay for it.
I said before that I think part of the point is not merely to hurt public education in order to move towards a privatized system, but also to erode the foundations of pluralistic society. I think that’s a big part of this. Public education is, at its heart, a radical and beautiful idea. It’s not merely that everyone should have access to education, and that we should all pay for it. It’s the idea that children from across class, racial, ethnic, and other boundaries can come together and work and learn together. They don’t merely learn the knowledge and skills that school teaches them, but how to operate in a democracy where everyone is not alike. Seeing that a multicultural, pluralistic society can work—not perfectly, not without angst, not without effort—is an essential part of a civic education. And that knowledge contributes to the understanding that society is a supporter of individual flourishing, not a threat to it, and that what ultimately benefits the individual is what benefits all of us. Urban people tend to be more liberal in part because they see every day the necessity of people working together to provide for the common welfare, which often means effective government. That in part is what vouchers threaten, as they contribute to the division of children into smaller and smaller subsections where they lack the ability to meaningfully interact with others from across the broad American range of difference, and to see the necessity of shared sacrifice.
“We’re all in this together” is a fundamental liberal insight. It’s everyone’s right to send their children off to private school for whatever reason they see fit, and many do so for exclusively enlightened motives. But to say that the public is obligated to pay for it, without real accountability and absent any meaningful evidence of superior outcomes, is nuts.
At one point he discusses the fact that no one would consider a voucher system for things like public transportation or defense spending, but we're already seeing that starting to happen: the Ryan plan for Medicare, which is, undoubtedly, a voucher system, using taxpayer funds to pay for private insurance. (And also, by the way, inserting a middle-man between the payer (the government, which is to say, us) and the provider, the same broken system we have now in health-care coverage in general.)
Read the whole thing. It's clear-eyed and very intelligent, although one point he makes that needs further emphasis: you have every right to have your child educated in private schools. You have no right to take my money to pay for it.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The News Is What It Always Is
which makes me think I should just stop writing about politics. We'll see.
I reread No Touching at All today as my refuge from everything else I have to do. It's really an amazing little gem: funny, touching, sweet, romantic, edgy and altogether wonderful. It's one of those books that gets richer as you go back into it -- there's much more to it than I realized in the Review in Brief.
And that's all, folks!
I reread No Touching at All today as my refuge from everything else I have to do. It's really an amazing little gem: funny, touching, sweet, romantic, edgy and altogether wonderful. It's one of those books that gets richer as you go back into it -- there's much more to it than I realized in the Review in Brief.
And that's all, folks!
Monday, May 16, 2011
You Have to Wonder
Just what the people at WaPo are thinking sometimes. This is one of the most bizarre headlines I've ever seen:
What Trump can teach the GOP field
The post is even more bizarre.
I had just remarked to a colleague about what kind of ego it takes to call a press conference to announce that you're not running for president.
I'm not sure if there's a lesson from the Trump "saga" for the rest of the GOP field, but what it tells the rest of us is that the GOP has really gone round the bend.
And WaPo is right with them.
What Trump can teach the GOP field
The post is even more bizarre.
I had just remarked to a colleague about what kind of ego it takes to call a press conference to announce that you're not running for president.
I'm not sure if there's a lesson from the Trump "saga" for the rest of the GOP field, but what it tells the rest of us is that the GOP has really gone round the bend.
And WaPo is right with them.
The Moral Foundations of the "Christian" Right
Very interesting article at BTB on the involvement of Liberty University Law School in the parent-kidnapping of Lisa Miller-Jenkins, and what they are teaching their students about "render unto Caesar."
Today, Religion Dispatches associate editor Sarah Posner reports that Lisa Miller’s attorneys Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, who teach a required Foundations of Law course at Liberty University, are teaching their students that when confronted with a case like Lisa Miller’s, that the attorney has an obligation to resolve the conflict between “God’s Law” and “man’s law” by advising the client to solve the conflict through “civil disobedience”.
These are attorneys, teachers, and the dean of a law school telling students to counsel clients to break the law -- which means the students would have to violate their oaths as attorneys to uphold the laws.
Making up lies about GLBTs is certainly not a stretch for this bunch.
A hint for Mat Staver: if you want a clue about the moral decline of America, look in the mirror.
Today, Religion Dispatches associate editor Sarah Posner reports that Lisa Miller’s attorneys Mat Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen, who teach a required Foundations of Law course at Liberty University, are teaching their students that when confronted with a case like Lisa Miller’s, that the attorney has an obligation to resolve the conflict between “God’s Law” and “man’s law” by advising the client to solve the conflict through “civil disobedience”.
These are attorneys, teachers, and the dean of a law school telling students to counsel clients to break the law -- which means the students would have to violate their oaths as attorneys to uphold the laws.
Making up lies about GLBTs is certainly not a stretch for this bunch.
A hint for Mat Staver: if you want a clue about the moral decline of America, look in the mirror.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Reviews in Brief: Utawarerumono (anime)
An unconscious, severely wounded man is discovered in the forest by Eruruu, the granddaughter of the village healer, Tuskuru. He wears a mask that they cannot remove, and when he finally awakens, he cannot remember anything of his past life. Tuskuru names him Hakuorou, and he remains in the village -- he has nowhere else to go. He eventually becomes the chief of the village, and, due to circumstances beyond his control, embarks on the path to empire.
This one starts off looking like a fairly standard historical romance/fantasy, except the historical period is up for grabs: it's really more fantasy than history, even without the fact that the characters are all kemonomimi (animal ears) -- except for Hakuoro, a phenomenon which is explained later on, when the story starts to take on a definite science-fiction cast. (Hint: this is far in the future, and there's a mad scientist involved.) Then it goes back to fantasy, of a strange, almost mystical sort.
As far as the acting goes, it is, as seems to be the case more often than not, excellent. I'm not familiar with any of the seiyuu for the major characters, but they are pretty much right on target. Special mention to Rikiya Koyama as Hakuoro -- he does as much as anything else to make Hakuoro a real person. This is not to downplay any other contributions -- this one displays a full range of colorful, vivid characters, and the actors are up to it.
It's a two-season TV series -- 26 episodes -- and worth every second. I've been watching it online, but the DVD is on its way to me -- it's definitely a keeper.
Funimation has licensed it in North America. And rather than take up space here listing cast and staff, here's the link the to encyclopedia entry at Anime News Network, which is where I get all that information anyway.
A Further Thought
on Randian "philosophy." I made a point a couple of days ago that I think needs some amending.
Rand's "philosophy," if you want to dignify it by that, is pretty much upside down. Ask yourself why we have societies to begin with. Why is sociality an adaptive trait? I suspect it's not because it allows the strong to keep everything for themselves. In fact, every society I can think of that ever went that route collapsed pretty quickly.
OK -- my bad. I wasn't considering the evidence and just bought into the Randian vocabulary. It's not that these supermen are "strong" -- they're dishonest. Most people are honest, which puts the rest of us at a disadvantage when dealing with them. Like their goddess, they're sociopaths, pretty much. In any sane system, people like Rand Paul would be locked up, not elected to the Senate.
Rand's "philosophy," if you want to dignify it by that, is pretty much upside down. Ask yourself why we have societies to begin with. Why is sociality an adaptive trait? I suspect it's not because it allows the strong to keep everything for themselves. In fact, every society I can think of that ever went that route collapsed pretty quickly.
OK -- my bad. I wasn't considering the evidence and just bought into the Randian vocabulary. It's not that these supermen are "strong" -- they're dishonest. Most people are honest, which puts the rest of us at a disadvantage when dealing with them. Like their goddess, they're sociopaths, pretty much. In any sane system, people like Rand Paul would be locked up, not elected to the Senate.
That Sports Thing
I've been noticing a strong trend in major sports figures and organizations against homophobia. It's more apparent in the UK than here -- the pushback seems to be stronger, with rugby clubs being fined for homophobic slurs by their fans, but it's starting to gain momentum here, too.
The Sean Avery episode is pretty instructive. Johnette Howard has a good commentary at ESPN:
It's hard to gauge who did more to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage in the past week -- New York Rangers forward Sean Avery (the first pro athlete to publicly support New Yorkers for Marriage Equality), or the father-and-son sports agent team of Don and Todd Reynolds, whose swift attacks of Avery's stance caused a remarkable thing to happen. The Reynolds' reactions caused thousands of other people to step forward and out themselves as gay rights supporters, too, in a louder, longer show of support for Avery on Twitter and Facebook, radio and TV, in blogs and newspapers and sports fan message boards than Avery's appearance in a video advertisement for the marriage equality campaign might have generated on its own.
All of which led to a second surprise: Avery's support for gay rights isn't unique in male pro sports at all.
It's an excellent article -- read the whole thing.
And having the kind of mind that makes wide connections, there's another aspect to the whole trend if you back away a bit -- but we're still in the New York marriage context.
As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.
Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.
Add in the outcry over Paul Clemens taking on the defense of DOMA on behalf of King & Spaulding, and K&S subsequently dropping the case. (Although as it seems now, the reasons that K&S dropped the case had nothing to do with HRC -- it was, at least in part, the strong negative reaction from their own employees. Here's a good summary of the whole thing from Timothy Kincaid.)
The point, I think, is fairly obvious. Look at the trends in public polling over the past few years, and there has been a rapid and significant shift in public opinion about gay civil rights, including marriage, in our favor. The anti-gay Christianists are finding themselves more and more on the margins, which is what's making them so shrill these days. (Except for Peter LaBarbera -- he was always shrill. It's probably the pornography getting him all worked up.) The only ones who don't seem to get it are Republican legislators, at all levels, and the mainstream corporate press.
Bottom line: It's no longer respectable to be anti-gay.
The Sean Avery episode is pretty instructive. Johnette Howard has a good commentary at ESPN:
It's hard to gauge who did more to advance the cause of legalizing gay marriage in the past week -- New York Rangers forward Sean Avery (the first pro athlete to publicly support New Yorkers for Marriage Equality), or the father-and-son sports agent team of Don and Todd Reynolds, whose swift attacks of Avery's stance caused a remarkable thing to happen. The Reynolds' reactions caused thousands of other people to step forward and out themselves as gay rights supporters, too, in a louder, longer show of support for Avery on Twitter and Facebook, radio and TV, in blogs and newspapers and sports fan message boards than Avery's appearance in a video advertisement for the marriage equality campaign might have generated on its own.
All of which led to a second surprise: Avery's support for gay rights isn't unique in male pro sports at all.
It's an excellent article -- read the whole thing.
And having the kind of mind that makes wide connections, there's another aspect to the whole trend if you back away a bit -- but we're still in the New York marriage context.
As gay rights advocates intensify their campaign to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, the bulk of their money is coming from an unexpected source: a group of conservative financiers and wealthy donors to the Republican Party, most of whom are known for bankrolling right-leaning candidates and causes.
Their behind-the-scenes financial support — about $1 million in donations, delivered in recent weeks to a new coalition of gay rights organizations — could alter the political calculus of Albany lawmakers, especially the Republican state senators in whose hands the fate of gay marriage rests.
Add in the outcry over Paul Clemens taking on the defense of DOMA on behalf of King & Spaulding, and K&S subsequently dropping the case. (Although as it seems now, the reasons that K&S dropped the case had nothing to do with HRC -- it was, at least in part, the strong negative reaction from their own employees. Here's a good summary of the whole thing from Timothy Kincaid.)
The point, I think, is fairly obvious. Look at the trends in public polling over the past few years, and there has been a rapid and significant shift in public opinion about gay civil rights, including marriage, in our favor. The anti-gay Christianists are finding themselves more and more on the margins, which is what's making them so shrill these days. (Except for Peter LaBarbera -- he was always shrill. It's probably the pornography getting him all worked up.) The only ones who don't seem to get it are Republican legislators, at all levels, and the mainstream corporate press.
Bottom line: It's no longer respectable to be anti-gay.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Anyone who has a cat
will know why this is one of my favorite photos ever:
And you actually thought you were in charge.
Thanks to Digby.
And you actually thought you were in charge.
Thanks to Digby.
Friday, May 13, 2011
This Is Just Sick
I don't think I need to comment at all, except to note that, if you go to the comments at this post (which is where I first found the video), pay particular attention to commenter "timjoebillybob" -- he never seems to have heard the phrase "the common good," and doesn't seem to understand that others are paying taxes for his benefit as well as their own. Big effin infant, all caught up in the idea that his taxes might actually pay for something that benefits someone else, too.
Here's a more complete version of that video -- Bernie Sanders calls it what it is.
See also this take-down of the "conservative" position on Medicare by Maha.
And as a footnote, and an indicator (if you needed another one) of the basic philosophy of the "fiscally responsible" right, here's Gov. Haley Barbour's reaction to the potential devastation in Mississippi from flooding:
As the water rose, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour moved furniture out of his lake house outside Vicksburg on family land that was inundated during the 1927 flood. A week ago, he urged residents to flee low-lying areas, saying that the state wouldn't assist the evacuations and that people should help one another secure their property and get out.
Mm -- that's "fiscally responsible, small-government conservatives." (But he did ask the feds for disaster assistance -- ya don't want government to get too small, now.)
Payback
And the Republicans don't like it.
The Republican freshman class in the House is very willing to forget the past and move ahead.
House Republican freshmen admit that their so-called "MediScare" attacks on Democrats helped them win a big majority in 2010. Democrats had voted for the health care law, which included $500 billion in "cuts" to Medicare -- primarily slashing overpayments to private insurers -- and Republican challengers never let them forget it.
Now, they say, it's time to let bygones be bygones.
They don't want anyone to remember that they got into office by sniping at the Democrats for gutting Medicare:
"Let's get past the past. Let's move forward to the future, and say, 'ok, today is today, and we have a real problem,'" Kinzinger said.
The teabaggers in Congress are the problem, if you ask me, so I think the Democrats are, for a change, doing the right thing: using their own tactics against them. After all, it worked for the loonies.
And let's face it, Paul Ryan's "Roadmap to Ruin," which they all voted for, is one hell of an albatross. I don't see why the Democrats should let anyone forget what these assholes are about.
Here's the letter. Talk about a mealy-mouthed piece of CYA.
My advice to the Democrats: hit them harder, and don't let up.
The Republican freshman class in the House is very willing to forget the past and move ahead.
House Republican freshmen admit that their so-called "MediScare" attacks on Democrats helped them win a big majority in 2010. Democrats had voted for the health care law, which included $500 billion in "cuts" to Medicare -- primarily slashing overpayments to private insurers -- and Republican challengers never let them forget it.
Now, they say, it's time to let bygones be bygones.
They don't want anyone to remember that they got into office by sniping at the Democrats for gutting Medicare:
"Let's get past the past. Let's move forward to the future, and say, 'ok, today is today, and we have a real problem,'" Kinzinger said.
The teabaggers in Congress are the problem, if you ask me, so I think the Democrats are, for a change, doing the right thing: using their own tactics against them. After all, it worked for the loonies.
And let's face it, Paul Ryan's "Roadmap to Ruin," which they all voted for, is one hell of an albatross. I don't see why the Democrats should let anyone forget what these assholes are about.
Here's the letter. Talk about a mealy-mouthed piece of CYA.
My advice to the Democrats: hit them harder, and don't let up.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Take That, Paul Ryan!
Paul Krugman, as usual, hits it right on the head: a very clear -- and clear-headed -- exposition of what went wrong and who did it.
Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.
So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.
The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.
This group includes what Digby calls "the Villagers." You remember the Villagers -- they're the ones with the torches and pitchforks.
No one ever said they were right. In fact, if you've read the book, you know they weren't -- just ignorant and frightened.
Sounds like a match, to me.
A further thought: It occurs to me that, in spite of what you're hearing from the orthodox Randians, the parasite class doesn't create wealth -- they appropriate it. With the full connivance of our government. And not a single damned one of them could have made it to where they are without the rest of us.
Update: Here's some good background from Jonathan Turley on the Randian takeover of the Republican party, with particular reference to Paul Ryan's atrocity of a "budget proposal." This part struck me:
The core of the Randian worldview, as absorbed by the modern GOP, is a belief that the natural market distribution of income is inherently moral, and the central struggle of politics is to free the successful from having the fruits of their superiority redistributed by looters and moochers.
See what I said above about who actually produces wealth. Rand's "philosophy," if you want to dignify it by that, is pretty much upside down. Ask yourself why we have societies to begin with. Why is sociality an adaptive trait? I suspect it's not because it allows the strong to keep everything for themselves. In fact, every society I can think of that ever went that route collapsed pretty quickly.
Well, what I’ve been hearing with growing frequency from members of the policy elite — self-appointed wise men, officials, and pundits in good standing — is the claim that it’s mostly the public’s fault. The idea is that we got into this mess because voters wanted something for nothing, and weak-minded politicians catered to the electorate’s foolishness.
So this seems like a good time to point out that this blame-the-public view isn’t just self-serving, it’s dead wrong.
The fact is that what we’re experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. The policies that got us into this mess weren’t responses to public demand. They were, with few exceptions, policies championed by small groups of influential people — in many cases, the same people now lecturing the rest of us on the need to get serious. And by trying to shift the blame to the general populace, elites are ducking some much-needed reflection on their own catastrophic mistakes.
This group includes what Digby calls "the Villagers." You remember the Villagers -- they're the ones with the torches and pitchforks.
No one ever said they were right. In fact, if you've read the book, you know they weren't -- just ignorant and frightened.
Sounds like a match, to me.
A further thought: It occurs to me that, in spite of what you're hearing from the orthodox Randians, the parasite class doesn't create wealth -- they appropriate it. With the full connivance of our government. And not a single damned one of them could have made it to where they are without the rest of us.
Update: Here's some good background from Jonathan Turley on the Randian takeover of the Republican party, with particular reference to Paul Ryan's atrocity of a "budget proposal." This part struck me:
The core of the Randian worldview, as absorbed by the modern GOP, is a belief that the natural market distribution of income is inherently moral, and the central struggle of politics is to free the successful from having the fruits of their superiority redistributed by looters and moochers.
See what I said above about who actually produces wealth. Rand's "philosophy," if you want to dignify it by that, is pretty much upside down. Ask yourself why we have societies to begin with. Why is sociality an adaptive trait? I suspect it's not because it allows the strong to keep everything for themselves. In fact, every society I can think of that ever went that route collapsed pretty quickly.
Naval Weddings
The Navy has decided to allow same-sex weddings on bases in those states where same-sex marriages are recognized. Tony Perkins, head of the hate group Family Research Council, is shocked! shocked, I tell you. Why, it's nothing more than a task force of Navy SEALs denying his constitutional right to force his religion down everyone else's throats. His, imagery, though, is telling:
If the administration keeps pounding its agenda through the military, we'll need the Navy SEALs to rescue marriage.
He seems to like the idea of Navy SEALs pounding. Or maybe he wants to pound a couple of SEALs.
It is, of course, an "an assault on religious freedom." I don't understand quite how that works -- no one is forcing him to marry a SEAL -- or even a midshipman. No one's forcing him to perform such a marriage, assuming he's otherwise qualified. No one's saying he can't continue to lie about it every time he opens his mouth (although no one's promising not to criticize him for the lies, either).
So where's the assault?
I'd note that he's arguably the biggest liar on the Christianist right, but the field's so crowded at this point that it's hard to differentiate between the bald-faced liars and the seriously deluded. But I suppose he's right to be desperate -- after all, he's losing.
If the administration keeps pounding its agenda through the military, we'll need the Navy SEALs to rescue marriage.
He seems to like the idea of Navy SEALs pounding. Or maybe he wants to pound a couple of SEALs.
It is, of course, an "an assault on religious freedom." I don't understand quite how that works -- no one is forcing him to marry a SEAL -- or even a midshipman. No one's forcing him to perform such a marriage, assuming he's otherwise qualified. No one's saying he can't continue to lie about it every time he opens his mouth (although no one's promising not to criticize him for the lies, either).
So where's the assault?
I'd note that he's arguably the biggest liar on the Christianist right, but the field's so crowded at this point that it's hard to differentiate between the bald-faced liars and the seriously deluded. But I suppose he's right to be desperate -- after all, he's losing.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Reviews in Brief: Yuki Shimizu's Ze, Vols, 1-6
I've caught up on Yuki Shimizu's Ze -- volume 6 is out in English, out of eleven volumes total, so there's a lot to look forward to -- and I don't seem to have reviewed it here. That's certainly an oversight.
The basic situation is as follows: Raizou Shichikawa, having lost everything -- his grandmother, his home, even most of his clothes -- lands a position as housekeeper to the somewhat eccentric Mitou family, or at least part of it. This part of the family, composed of Kotoha Mitou, Ouka Mitou, Benio, Konoe and Kon, lives in a mansion that is actually owned by Waki Yoshiwara. It doesn't take long for Raizou to discover the family's secret: Kotoha and Ouka are kotodamishi, sorcerers who use the power of words. Konoe and Benio are their respective kami-sama, dolls given life by Waki, the dollmaker, who heal their masters (kotodamishi has some heavy-duty blowback) and protect them from the worst effects of kotodama. Kon is a kami without a master; Raizou promptly falls in love with him and claims him for his own. (And note that kotodamishi and their kami-sama must be of the same sex, for some reason.)
That's one of the chief attractions of this series: as it progresses, the characterizations become more complex, situations become less straightforward, and relationships become more nuanced. And somehow, the drawing, which is very appealing to start with, becomes clearer and stronger.
It's definitely a series to follow, and I can't believe I haven't highlighted it here yet.
It's from 801 Media.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Threats and Intimidation
I'm sure you've all heard about the deep-seated anxiety on the anti-gay right about the potential -- that's "potential" mind you -- threats and intimidation from "militant gay activists" if, for example, they publicly list their donors, or if their "expert" witnesses appear to testify at trial, or if their supporters put campaign signs in their yards. In that light, I found this interesting -- from NYT:
As in past years, the local religious opposition to same-sex marriage will have the support of a Washington-based national political lobby, the National Organization for Marriage, which formed in 2007 to fight same-sex legislation around the country. That organization was behind the April 12 blitz of automated phone calls singling out voters in about a dozen Senate and Assembly districts where legislators have said they are undecided. Brian Brown, the group’s president, said the calls urged voters to tell lawmakers they opposed same-sex marriage.
“We spent over half a million dollars in New York” in 2009, he said, “and we’re ready to spend that and more this time. We are willing to spend a million against any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage.”
Sure sounds like a threat to me. (And that money's from secret donors.) And from an out-of-state organization seeking to interfere in the politics of New York. And Brian Brown, being the well-spoken, civilized person he is, is bragging about it.
Actually, he's starting to sound a little shrill.
The religious leaders in this effort are making arguments -- well, the Times calls them arguments -- that just don't hold water:
They make a two-tiered argument. First, they cite biblical injunctions against homosexuality.
Umm -- have they read the First Amendment? The part about establishment of religion? That objection's completely irrelevant. And to those who say we have to understand their deeply-held convictions, try this: point out to them that those convictions are theirs, not anyone else's, and they don't belong in the civil law. In fact, they're not allowed in the civil law.
Second, they warn that social services, like foster care and adoption, provided by religiously sponsored charities could be endangered by the legalization of same-sex marriage. They point to Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., where Catholic Charities stopped participating in adoption services rather than face a mandate to place children in homes without regard to the sexual orientation of the couple.
Sounds like another threat, to me. And they don't mention, for some reason, that other agencies were very happy to take up the slack -- and the taxpayer funds that went with it. In Illinois, religiously-affiliated adoption agencies are being audited to make sure they're complying with anti-discrimination laws, and they're not happy about it. Why do you suppose they think that they shouldn't have to obey the law just like the rest of us? Now, it would be perfectly allowable if Catholic Charities wanted to support adoption services that discriminate on the basis of Catholic doctrine -- with their own money. But not with mine. Another bit from the article on that score:
But State Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who has co-sponsored the same-sex marriage bill in past years, said civil liability for violating discrimination laws was already a fact of life.
And this, from Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin:
And to the Catholic Church in Illinois, I say:
I support you.
I totally agree that if Catholic girls wish to give their children up for adoption and want them to go to Catholic families and be raised in the Catholic faith, then Catholic organizations should be able to facilitate such adoptions. With Catholic dollars.
Read Kincaid's post. It's a good one. (Sounds like something I'd write.)
I find it highly instructive of the nature of modern Christianity -- and Judaism, or at least segments of both groups -- that they are so insistent on maintaining their ability to preach marginalization and exclusion against those they disapprove of -- and to insist that the rest of us allow their biases to form the basis of our law. And pay for it.
And here's the howler of the day:
The Rev. William Gillison, vice chairman of the Empire Missionary Baptist Convention, which represents several hundred Baptist churches around the state, said he had preached against legalizing same-sex marriage many times at his church in Buffalo, and would again. “This is a case where the state has entered an area that rightfully belongs to the church, not the other way around,” he said. (Emphasis added)
Um, no. Marriage has always been a civil contract. That's why we call it "civil marriage." It doesn't belong to the church and never has.
I find the assumption on the part of these people that the laws of the land that apply to everyone must conform with their limited and authoritarian world view to be fairly repellent. It's time the rest of us pointed out that their authority is limited to those who choose to permit it. I'm not one of them.
As in past years, the local religious opposition to same-sex marriage will have the support of a Washington-based national political lobby, the National Organization for Marriage, which formed in 2007 to fight same-sex legislation around the country. That organization was behind the April 12 blitz of automated phone calls singling out voters in about a dozen Senate and Assembly districts where legislators have said they are undecided. Brian Brown, the group’s president, said the calls urged voters to tell lawmakers they opposed same-sex marriage.
“We spent over half a million dollars in New York” in 2009, he said, “and we’re ready to spend that and more this time. We are willing to spend a million against any Republican senator who votes for gay marriage.”
Sure sounds like a threat to me. (And that money's from secret donors.) And from an out-of-state organization seeking to interfere in the politics of New York. And Brian Brown, being the well-spoken, civilized person he is, is bragging about it.
Actually, he's starting to sound a little shrill.
The religious leaders in this effort are making arguments -- well, the Times calls them arguments -- that just don't hold water:
They make a two-tiered argument. First, they cite biblical injunctions against homosexuality.
Umm -- have they read the First Amendment? The part about establishment of religion? That objection's completely irrelevant. And to those who say we have to understand their deeply-held convictions, try this: point out to them that those convictions are theirs, not anyone else's, and they don't belong in the civil law. In fact, they're not allowed in the civil law.
Second, they warn that social services, like foster care and adoption, provided by religiously sponsored charities could be endangered by the legalization of same-sex marriage. They point to Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., where Catholic Charities stopped participating in adoption services rather than face a mandate to place children in homes without regard to the sexual orientation of the couple.
Sounds like another threat, to me. And they don't mention, for some reason, that other agencies were very happy to take up the slack -- and the taxpayer funds that went with it. In Illinois, religiously-affiliated adoption agencies are being audited to make sure they're complying with anti-discrimination laws, and they're not happy about it. Why do you suppose they think that they shouldn't have to obey the law just like the rest of us? Now, it would be perfectly allowable if Catholic Charities wanted to support adoption services that discriminate on the basis of Catholic doctrine -- with their own money. But not with mine. Another bit from the article on that score:
But State Senator Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who has co-sponsored the same-sex marriage bill in past years, said civil liability for violating discrimination laws was already a fact of life.
And this, from Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin:
And to the Catholic Church in Illinois, I say:
I support you.
I totally agree that if Catholic girls wish to give their children up for adoption and want them to go to Catholic families and be raised in the Catholic faith, then Catholic organizations should be able to facilitate such adoptions. With Catholic dollars.
Read Kincaid's post. It's a good one. (Sounds like something I'd write.)
I find it highly instructive of the nature of modern Christianity -- and Judaism, or at least segments of both groups -- that they are so insistent on maintaining their ability to preach marginalization and exclusion against those they disapprove of -- and to insist that the rest of us allow their biases to form the basis of our law. And pay for it.
And here's the howler of the day:
The Rev. William Gillison, vice chairman of the Empire Missionary Baptist Convention, which represents several hundred Baptist churches around the state, said he had preached against legalizing same-sex marriage many times at his church in Buffalo, and would again. “This is a case where the state has entered an area that rightfully belongs to the church, not the other way around,” he said. (Emphasis added)
Um, no. Marriage has always been a civil contract. That's why we call it "civil marriage." It doesn't belong to the church and never has.
I find the assumption on the part of these people that the laws of the land that apply to everyone must conform with their limited and authoritarian world view to be fairly repellent. It's time the rest of us pointed out that their authority is limited to those who choose to permit it. I'm not one of them.
Friday, May 06, 2011
It Just Occurred To Me
That I enjoy reading articles about what's going on in state legislatures and city councils and such, as opposed to Congress. As to why -- maybe it has to do with the fact that at the state and local level, progressives and Democrats (not always the same thing) are fighting back. In Congress, Democrats are part of what we're having to fight against.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
You Call This Living?
Melissa McEwen has a strong post at Shakesville that starts this way:
I am listening to the House debate on HR3, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Eprehensible) just said, "We are a culture that values life."
NO. YOU. FUCKING. DON'T.
Here's Amanda Marcotte with a slightly more level discussion, and a further commentary on the real purposes of the bill. She also points out some of the ramifications (although some of them are a bit of a stretch, I think -- but with the Republicans in control of Washington, you never can tell.)
HR 3, in case you haven't been following, is the latest Republican attempt to do away with a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. It's billed as the "No Taxpayer Money for Abortion" bill. Well, I'm a taxpayer, and I have no problem with my tax money being used to support the decision of those women who decide on abortion. (The bill, as might be expected, passed overwhelmingly in the House, because the Republicans have an overwhelming majority in the House.)
But McEwen only hits part of the problem -- although it's a big part.
This is also the party that is mainstreaming the destruction of the middle class, that wants to yank insurance coverage from 45 million people by repealing the Affordable Care Act (and how many deaths will result from that?), that wants to bomb anyone anywhere who doesn't do exactly what we tell them, that wants to revoke the right of some citizens to form secure families, and that otherwise doesn't give a shit about peoples lives.
So on the face of it, I'd say Cantor's a liar.
Why am I not surprised?
I am listening to the House debate on HR3, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Eprehensible) just said, "We are a culture that values life."
NO. YOU. FUCKING. DON'T.
Here's Amanda Marcotte with a slightly more level discussion, and a further commentary on the real purposes of the bill. She also points out some of the ramifications (although some of them are a bit of a stretch, I think -- but with the Republicans in control of Washington, you never can tell.)
HR 3, in case you haven't been following, is the latest Republican attempt to do away with a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. It's billed as the "No Taxpayer Money for Abortion" bill. Well, I'm a taxpayer, and I have no problem with my tax money being used to support the decision of those women who decide on abortion. (The bill, as might be expected, passed overwhelmingly in the House, because the Republicans have an overwhelming majority in the House.)
But McEwen only hits part of the problem -- although it's a big part.
This is also the party that is mainstreaming the destruction of the middle class, that wants to yank insurance coverage from 45 million people by repealing the Affordable Care Act (and how many deaths will result from that?), that wants to bomb anyone anywhere who doesn't do exactly what we tell them, that wants to revoke the right of some citizens to form secure families, and that otherwise doesn't give a shit about peoples lives.
So on the face of it, I'd say Cantor's a liar.
Why am I not surprised?
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Update on Sen. Frothy Mix
Timothy Kincaid has this great post at BTB on Sen. Frothy's confusion about rights and privileges (which we noted yesterday), with a stunning quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
And for former Senator Teabagger Wannabe, just in case he was wondering -- that's from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the PRIVILEGES or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [emphasis added]
And for former Senator Teabagger Wannabe, just in case he was wondering -- that's from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Today's Must-Read
This article, about two dads with twelve kids.
And then send a letter to this asshole.
You'll probably want to wash your hands after writing his name.
And then send a letter to this asshole.
You'll probably want to wash your hands after writing his name.
Timothy Kincaid on Bob Barr
Timothy Kincaid has an excellent post up at BTB on Bob Barr, whom you may remember as the author of DOMA. You may also know that Barr has changed his mind -- not out of any newfound love for gay people, but as a matter of principle.
But the bombing of the World Trade center in 2001, coupled with the federal government’s crack down on civil freedoms, woke Barr up. His libertarianism ceased to be (as it is for many Republicans) a platitude around which exceptions are the norm and he began to question whether many of the positions he had one time championed were not actually in direct violation to the principles which he espoused.
It's a good analysis -- read it.
Although Kincaid thinks that Barr's new stance may serve to reposition the discourse, at least in legitimately conservative circles, I'm not so sanguine. It's certainly going to have no effect on the professional homophobes, who already see their cash cow drying up, but as we learned from the experience of GOProud and CPAC, establishment wingnuts are not going to sit still for any accommodation with gays: Barr's appeal is to principle, and these are not principled people.
As for the base, they're largely operating on lizard brain, and to demand that they actually consider the ramifications of the Constitution they claim to worship, especially when it applies to people they disapprove of, is going to overtax their resources, I'm pretty sure.
I don't mean to sound morbid, but the idea that American political discourse is driven by reason or principle these days is clearly wishful thinking. If Barr can be enlisted to lobby his former colleagues in Congress, that would be wonderful -- he has the contacts and the knowledge to be very effective (assuming the teabaggers will listen to an ex-Republican, because in spite of their rhetoric, they're no more libertarian than I am -- in fact, I'd say demonstrably less).
But Barr's speech, which Kincaid links to, and Kincaid's post do serve the very useful purpose of moving the gay rights debate up a level, for those who are inclined to listen, an may provide an additional resource for those willing and able to use it. And I think this comment by Kincaid puts the whole thing in the proper perspective:
Marriage is a contract, a social, emotional, and financial agreement based on terms, conditions, and promises. These vows we may pledge, be it in front of an alter (sic) with family, friends and God as witness, or privately and quietly.
We can marry; that isn’t really our issue. Our issue is whether the state will recognize and enforce this contract.
And we have the right to demand that it do so. And opponents who argue that we can have wills, and powers of attorney, and ‘designated funeral-planning agent’ forms to provide “many of the same benefits” should be made to explain why it is that the state may enforce those contracts, but not the one we have already made.
It's not that we have to prove that we deserve the same rights as every other citizen; the government has to prove that we do not, and so far, it can't.
But the bombing of the World Trade center in 2001, coupled with the federal government’s crack down on civil freedoms, woke Barr up. His libertarianism ceased to be (as it is for many Republicans) a platitude around which exceptions are the norm and he began to question whether many of the positions he had one time championed were not actually in direct violation to the principles which he espoused.
It's a good analysis -- read it.
Although Kincaid thinks that Barr's new stance may serve to reposition the discourse, at least in legitimately conservative circles, I'm not so sanguine. It's certainly going to have no effect on the professional homophobes, who already see their cash cow drying up, but as we learned from the experience of GOProud and CPAC, establishment wingnuts are not going to sit still for any accommodation with gays: Barr's appeal is to principle, and these are not principled people.
As for the base, they're largely operating on lizard brain, and to demand that they actually consider the ramifications of the Constitution they claim to worship, especially when it applies to people they disapprove of, is going to overtax their resources, I'm pretty sure.
I don't mean to sound morbid, but the idea that American political discourse is driven by reason or principle these days is clearly wishful thinking. If Barr can be enlisted to lobby his former colleagues in Congress, that would be wonderful -- he has the contacts and the knowledge to be very effective (assuming the teabaggers will listen to an ex-Republican, because in spite of their rhetoric, they're no more libertarian than I am -- in fact, I'd say demonstrably less).
But Barr's speech, which Kincaid links to, and Kincaid's post do serve the very useful purpose of moving the gay rights debate up a level, for those who are inclined to listen, an may provide an additional resource for those willing and able to use it. And I think this comment by Kincaid puts the whole thing in the proper perspective:
Marriage is a contract, a social, emotional, and financial agreement based on terms, conditions, and promises. These vows we may pledge, be it in front of an alter (sic) with family, friends and God as witness, or privately and quietly.
We can marry; that isn’t really our issue. Our issue is whether the state will recognize and enforce this contract.
And we have the right to demand that it do so. And opponents who argue that we can have wills, and powers of attorney, and ‘designated funeral-planning agent’ forms to provide “many of the same benefits” should be made to explain why it is that the state may enforce those contracts, but not the one we have already made.
It's not that we have to prove that we deserve the same rights as every other citizen; the government has to prove that we do not, and so far, it can't.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Mission Finally Accomplished
Osama bin Laden is dead, killed in a raid by U.S. military forces in Pakistan.
Interestingly enough, most of the headlines are just screaming "Bin Laden is Dead!" -- but not NYT. Read their headline:
Interestingly enough, most of the headlines are just screaming "Bin Laden is Dead!" -- but not NYT. Read their headline:
Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says
Why does that strike me as weird? Maybe even a little snide. At any rate, read the article -- it's fairly thorough. Joe Sudbay has an equally cogent article at AmericaBlog.
I just want to point out that it took a Democratic administration to do it, because Democrats are focused on results -- at least, when they're being Democrats.
I just want to point out that it took a Democratic administration to do it, because Democrats are focused on results -- at least, when they're being Democrats.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
I Know, Part II
I haven't done a Review in Brief for a couple of weeks, mostly because I've written almost nothing in a couple of weeks. I do have some new things coming in, though, and a couple of anime that are really good, so maybe I'll be able to get something up here next weekend.
Wish me luck.
Wish me luck.
Yeah, I Know
I've been slacking off again. I'm tired,and it's really becoming spring, so I have no attention span whatsoever, and the news is not new.
I do have some thoughts on the King & Spaulding/DOMA mess, but I think there are a couple of posts that summarize my thoughts pretty effectively, without me having to do the work of actually thinking about it. Try this one from David Link at Independent Gay Forum. I don't often agree with Link, but in this case I think he's hit it right on the nose. Link's post is a response to this bit of handwringing from Jonathan Rauch, which typifies the response of the "acceptable" left and the Very Serious People in the corporate media.
This post from Scott Wooledge at The New Civil Rights Movement takes, I think, exactly the right tone: unmitigated snark.
My own reaction to most of the tut-tutting has been to the effect that no matter what small victories we achieve, we can count on finding those both inside and outside the community who will take it as an opportunity to proclaim once again what bullies we are (always prefaced, in this case, with "I personally believe DOMA is abhorrent. But. . . .")
It's also gratifying to learn that most of my surmises in this post turned out to be pretty accurate.
The real lesson from all of this, which is the one the right doesn't want you to hear, is that anti-gay bigotry is bad for business.
I do have some thoughts on the King & Spaulding/DOMA mess, but I think there are a couple of posts that summarize my thoughts pretty effectively, without me having to do the work of actually thinking about it. Try this one from David Link at Independent Gay Forum. I don't often agree with Link, but in this case I think he's hit it right on the nose. Link's post is a response to this bit of handwringing from Jonathan Rauch, which typifies the response of the "acceptable" left and the Very Serious People in the corporate media.
This post from Scott Wooledge at The New Civil Rights Movement takes, I think, exactly the right tone: unmitigated snark.
My own reaction to most of the tut-tutting has been to the effect that no matter what small victories we achieve, we can count on finding those both inside and outside the community who will take it as an opportunity to proclaim once again what bullies we are (always prefaced, in this case, with "I personally believe DOMA is abhorrent. But. . . .")
It's also gratifying to learn that most of my surmises in this post turned out to be pretty accurate.
The real lesson from all of this, which is the one the right doesn't want you to hear, is that anti-gay bigotry is bad for business.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Compare and Contrast
From WaPo, as might be expected:
The group’s attack called to mind last year’s assault on Justice Department lawyers who had in private practice represented detainees at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?” asked a video produced by the conservative group Keep America Safe, which questioned the patriotism and loyalty of the “al Qaeda 7 lawyers.” Never mind that these attorneys were acting in the best traditions of the country by representing even those accused of the most heinous acts. HRC similarly branded King & Spalding with the political views of its client and set out to make the firm pay. . . .
Not so long ago many lawyers would refuse to represent openly gay clients for fear of ruining their careers. It was wrong then to give in to pressure, and it’s wrong now. HRC and King & Spalding seem to have forgotten this.
So much for the "liberal" press. And, refreshingly, this from The Economist:
This is the way social justice happens. Not with a bang, but with white-shoe law firms becoming uncomfortable taking certain kinds of cases.
It seems that WaPo has once again gone for form over substance -- and equating criticism of attorneys defending constitutionally guaranteed rights with criticism of those seeking to deny those rights is pretty clueless, don't you think?
The group’s attack called to mind last year’s assault on Justice Department lawyers who had in private practice represented detainees at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. “Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?” asked a video produced by the conservative group Keep America Safe, which questioned the patriotism and loyalty of the “al Qaeda 7 lawyers.” Never mind that these attorneys were acting in the best traditions of the country by representing even those accused of the most heinous acts. HRC similarly branded King & Spalding with the political views of its client and set out to make the firm pay. . . .
Not so long ago many lawyers would refuse to represent openly gay clients for fear of ruining their careers. It was wrong then to give in to pressure, and it’s wrong now. HRC and King & Spalding seem to have forgotten this.
So much for the "liberal" press. And, refreshingly, this from The Economist:
This is the way social justice happens. Not with a bang, but with white-shoe law firms becoming uncomfortable taking certain kinds of cases.
It seems that WaPo has once again gone for form over substance -- and equating criticism of attorneys defending constitutionally guaranteed rights with criticism of those seeking to deny those rights is pretty clueless, don't you think?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
How Small Can You Get?
This proposal came from a Republican. Why am I not surprised?
Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores. . . .
Under his plan, foster children would receive gift cards that could only be used at places like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and other second hand clothing stores.
This reaction comes close to the nub of the proposal:
“Honestly, I was flabbergasted,” Jacobs says. “I really couldn’t believe this. Because I think, gosh, is this where we’ve gone in this state? I think that there’s the whole issue of dignity. You’re saying to somebody, you don’t deserve to go in and buy a new pair of gym shoes. You know, for a lot of foster kids, they already have so much stacked against them.”
But you don't understand: the whole Republican philosophy is built on punishment, much like evangelical Christianity. (Funny, that similarity, isn't it?) If you're not rich and powerful, then you should be punished for it. And if you're a kid who doesn't even have parents or a home, then you should be punished even more.
Builds character.
Fortunately, humanity prevailed and the provision was pulled.
Under a new budget proposal from State Sen. Bruce Casswell, children in the state’s foster care system would be allowed to purchase clothing only in used clothing stores. . . .
Under his plan, foster children would receive gift cards that could only be used at places like the Salvation Army, Goodwill and other second hand clothing stores.
This reaction comes close to the nub of the proposal:
“Honestly, I was flabbergasted,” Jacobs says. “I really couldn’t believe this. Because I think, gosh, is this where we’ve gone in this state? I think that there’s the whole issue of dignity. You’re saying to somebody, you don’t deserve to go in and buy a new pair of gym shoes. You know, for a lot of foster kids, they already have so much stacked against them.”
But you don't understand: the whole Republican philosophy is built on punishment, much like evangelical Christianity. (Funny, that similarity, isn't it?) If you're not rich and powerful, then you should be punished for it. And if you're a kid who doesn't even have parents or a home, then you should be punished even more.
Builds character.
Fortunately, humanity prevailed and the provision was pulled.
Monday, April 25, 2011
King & Spaulding Pulls Out
That's the firm roped into defending DOMA for the House Republicans under a shady contract that included a gag order for all employees -- whether they are involved in the case or not -- who might want to engage in anti-DOMA activities.
There's huge outcry from the left on this, and comments from the right, to the effect of "defending an unpopular law is going to have repercussions." In fact, Paul Clement, the partner who would have argued the case, put it this way:
"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do," Clement wrote to King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays. "I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it."
Read the full letter at the link.
Let me point out the obvious: No law firm of the stature of King & Spaulding is going to back out of a case because it's unpopular. I'm betting that at least part of the reason is the gag order making it a violation of the terms of the contract for any employee, anywhere, of K&S to engage in any advocacy for repeal of DOMA. My guess, and I admit it's a guess, is that the chairman of K&S heard from some of his partners at length and probably with some degree of heat about how the whole deal stinks. (I say this having heard bits of partners' meetings through closed doors when I worked for a law firm -- and our conference room doors were pretty solid.)
I do wonder why Boehner felt it necessary to write that provision into the contract -- it's certainly not something that K&S came up with, I'd be willing to bet on it. It's beyond overreach, but it's a good indicator of the way the modern Republican party (if you can accept the idea that statement is not an oxymoron) thinks.
The anti-gay right will, of course, make great capital out of this, beating the "evil homosexual activist lobby picking on the civil rights of bigots" drum for all it's worth. I suspect Clement landed W&S in a hot place with its own employees and principals with that contract, but acknowledging that would be inconvenient for the likes of Maggie Gallagher, who would much rather be a very public victim of the people whose lives she's trying to ruin.
I also find it interesting that Clement was able to announce joining a new firm this quickly. Someone had his escape hatch greased and ready. Like maybe he knew this was going to happen.
Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
There's huge outcry from the left on this, and comments from the right, to the effect of "defending an unpopular law is going to have repercussions." In fact, Paul Clement, the partner who would have argued the case, put it this way:
"I resign out of the firmly held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular clients is what lawyers do," Clement wrote to King & Spalding chairman Robert Hays. "I recognized from the outset that this statute implicates very sensitive issues that prompt strong views on both sides. But having undertaken the representation, I believe there is no honorable course for me but to complete it."
Read the full letter at the link.
Let me point out the obvious: No law firm of the stature of King & Spaulding is going to back out of a case because it's unpopular. I'm betting that at least part of the reason is the gag order making it a violation of the terms of the contract for any employee, anywhere, of K&S to engage in any advocacy for repeal of DOMA. My guess, and I admit it's a guess, is that the chairman of K&S heard from some of his partners at length and probably with some degree of heat about how the whole deal stinks. (I say this having heard bits of partners' meetings through closed doors when I worked for a law firm -- and our conference room doors were pretty solid.)
I do wonder why Boehner felt it necessary to write that provision into the contract -- it's certainly not something that K&S came up with, I'd be willing to bet on it. It's beyond overreach, but it's a good indicator of the way the modern Republican party (if you can accept the idea that statement is not an oxymoron) thinks.
The anti-gay right will, of course, make great capital out of this, beating the "evil homosexual activist lobby picking on the civil rights of bigots" drum for all it's worth. I suspect Clement landed W&S in a hot place with its own employees and principals with that contract, but acknowledging that would be inconvenient for the likes of Maggie Gallagher, who would much rather be a very public victim of the people whose lives she's trying to ruin.
I also find it interesting that Clement was able to announce joining a new firm this quickly. Someone had his escape hatch greased and ready. Like maybe he knew this was going to happen.
Or maybe I'm just too cynical.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
American Democracy, Republican Style
Via Crooks and Liars, this report on the burgeoning dictatorship in Michigan.
Once upon a time, you could believe that the Republican party treasured American-style democracy as much as the rest of us do. Not any more -- as Maddow points out, they see democracy as part of the problem.
It seems that Scott Walker is trying to institute the same kind of centralized dictatorship in Wisconsin. And here's an interesting little commentary on the way these things work.
And thanks to the Supreme Court, Inc., major corporations are now perfectly free to buy elections whenever they want.
I used to be able to vote a split ticket with a clear conscience. Not any more, at least not on a national level. I've become very happy to be a native of Illinois -- well, nearly native: I've lived here since I was six months old. Illinois is about the most average state in the union, and happily, wingnuts have a short shelf-life here, if they ever manage to gain any traction at all. (And a thought: don't look for a vote to throw out the Republicans to have any lasting effect if they manage to get their agendas through the state legislatures: as we can see from the Obama administration's reverence for basic civil liberties after the Bush administration tore up the Constitution, once the power is there, whoever's in office is not going to give it up. But I digress.)
Yes, we have a serious budget shortfall, just like everyone else. Our governor took the obvious tack and, in addition to cutting expenses, raised taxes. Not much -- our state income tax rate is actually below average, even with the hike -- but it seems like such an obvious thing to do. Tools like Walker in Wisconsin and Snyder in Michigan would rather sell off public assets to their campaign contributors.
And you wonder why reading the news turns my stomach.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Once upon a time, you could believe that the Republican party treasured American-style democracy as much as the rest of us do. Not any more -- as Maddow points out, they see democracy as part of the problem.
It seems that Scott Walker is trying to institute the same kind of centralized dictatorship in Wisconsin. And here's an interesting little commentary on the way these things work.
And thanks to the Supreme Court, Inc., major corporations are now perfectly free to buy elections whenever they want.
I used to be able to vote a split ticket with a clear conscience. Not any more, at least not on a national level. I've become very happy to be a native of Illinois -- well, nearly native: I've lived here since I was six months old. Illinois is about the most average state in the union, and happily, wingnuts have a short shelf-life here, if they ever manage to gain any traction at all. (And a thought: don't look for a vote to throw out the Republicans to have any lasting effect if they manage to get their agendas through the state legislatures: as we can see from the Obama administration's reverence for basic civil liberties after the Bush administration tore up the Constitution, once the power is there, whoever's in office is not going to give it up. But I digress.)
Yes, we have a serious budget shortfall, just like everyone else. Our governor took the obvious tack and, in addition to cutting expenses, raised taxes. Not much -- our state income tax rate is actually below average, even with the hike -- but it seems like such an obvious thing to do. Tools like Walker in Wisconsin and Snyder in Michigan would rather sell off public assets to their campaign contributors.
And you wonder why reading the news turns my stomach.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
This Bothers Me
Inevitably, there's talk of action against King & Spaulding, the law firm retained by House Republicans to defend DOMA in federal court.
Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, the nation's oldest and largest legal organization working for LGBT equality, had one word on the firm's decision to take the case: "Depressing."
"I think it's going to hurt them in their recruiting of future lawyers," he told The Huffington Post.
King & Spalding has touted its ties to Lambda Legal in recent years. In 2006, the firm announced it was a national sponsor of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. In its 2007 "Achievements in Diversity" report, the firm boasted, "Among other programs aimed at diverse law students, King & Spalding is a national sponsor of Lambda Legal, provides pro bono work for Lambda, and sponsors the organization in New York and Atlanta."
Davidson said in light of the DOMA announcement, he is no longer comfortable working with King & Spalding on cases.
"As legal director, I would take the position that we should not use them as cooperating attorneys with us -- that is, people who work with us on a pro bono basis in cases," said Davidson. "I wouldn't want to team with them, so long as they're actively harming our community by defending DOMA."
This is pretty lame. Lawyers are supposed to be advocates for their clients, but they wind up taking cases in which they know the client is wrong frequently enough that this shouldn't cause a ripple. As for Davidson's comment that "they're actively harming our community," they're only harming us if they win, and given the recent track record of same-sex marriage cases, that starts to look fairly remote. If they lose, they've given us a big boost.
On a deeper level, this is equivalent, in kind if not degree, to the attempts to oust the Iowa Supreme Court justices because of their decision on same-sex marriage. It's pretty un-American.
So, King & Spaulding agreeing to take the case doesn't upset me all that much -- Boehner's at least savvy enough to look for someone who can at least mount a credible defense, unlike Liberty Counsel or another of the wingnut legal groups.
What does bother me is this:
The contract, which was entered into with U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel Kerry Kircher on behalf of the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in court, contains a provision that prohibits all King & Spalding attorneys and non-attorney employees from any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA.
The paragraph in question states that "partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation ... that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement."
Moreover, the preceding paragraph, 4(f), contains a similar prohibition on the partners and employees who are participating in the litigation. Paragraph 4(g), thus, clearly is intended to apply to those who do not participate in the litigation.
Here's the agreement; the paragraphs in question are on page 3, paragraphs f & g:
kingspaulding
As the article points out, in some states this is illegal, and this provision is the one that I think ultimately could be the biggest liability for King & Spaulding, which makes a lot of noise about its inclusive non-discrimination policies. (Not that all that many of their attorneys are actually gay.)
What bothers me is that they didn't have to agree to that provision. I wonder why they did.
In the meantime, can we stop all the huffing and puffing until there's a reason for it?
Jon Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, the nation's oldest and largest legal organization working for LGBT equality, had one word on the firm's decision to take the case: "Depressing."
"I think it's going to hurt them in their recruiting of future lawyers," he told The Huffington Post.
King & Spalding has touted its ties to Lambda Legal in recent years. In 2006, the firm announced it was a national sponsor of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. In its 2007 "Achievements in Diversity" report, the firm boasted, "Among other programs aimed at diverse law students, King & Spalding is a national sponsor of Lambda Legal, provides pro bono work for Lambda, and sponsors the organization in New York and Atlanta."
Davidson said in light of the DOMA announcement, he is no longer comfortable working with King & Spalding on cases.
"As legal director, I would take the position that we should not use them as cooperating attorneys with us -- that is, people who work with us on a pro bono basis in cases," said Davidson. "I wouldn't want to team with them, so long as they're actively harming our community by defending DOMA."
This is pretty lame. Lawyers are supposed to be advocates for their clients, but they wind up taking cases in which they know the client is wrong frequently enough that this shouldn't cause a ripple. As for Davidson's comment that "they're actively harming our community," they're only harming us if they win, and given the recent track record of same-sex marriage cases, that starts to look fairly remote. If they lose, they've given us a big boost.
On a deeper level, this is equivalent, in kind if not degree, to the attempts to oust the Iowa Supreme Court justices because of their decision on same-sex marriage. It's pretty un-American.
So, King & Spaulding agreeing to take the case doesn't upset me all that much -- Boehner's at least savvy enough to look for someone who can at least mount a credible defense, unlike Liberty Counsel or another of the wingnut legal groups.
What does bother me is this:
The contract, which was entered into with U.S. House of Representatives General Counsel Kerry Kircher on behalf of the House's Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend DOMA in court, contains a provision that prohibits all King & Spalding attorneys and non-attorney employees from any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA.
The paragraph in question states that "partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation ... that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement."
Moreover, the preceding paragraph, 4(f), contains a similar prohibition on the partners and employees who are participating in the litigation. Paragraph 4(g), thus, clearly is intended to apply to those who do not participate in the litigation.
Here's the agreement; the paragraphs in question are on page 3, paragraphs f & g:
kingspaulding
As the article points out, in some states this is illegal, and this provision is the one that I think ultimately could be the biggest liability for King & Spaulding, which makes a lot of noise about its inclusive non-discrimination policies. (Not that all that many of their attorneys are actually gay.)
What bothers me is that they didn't have to agree to that provision. I wonder why they did.
In the meantime, can we stop all the huffing and puffing until there's a reason for it?
Friday, April 22, 2011
I'm in a mood
The whole damn system looks so rotten that I can't deal with it any more today. I'm going to spend the day translating the German edition of When a Man Loves a Man by Youka Nitta, finishing my reread of No Touching at All by Kou Yoneda, and tonight I'll watch the latest episode of Sekaiichi Hatsukoi, and then maybe a couple more episodes of Utawarerumono (which is turning out to be really very engaging).
And that's my plan.
And that's my plan.
We Need More Like This
This is NY state senator Diane Savino in 2009, when the New York marriage equality bill last came up for a vote.
Was it Newt Gingrich who thought that every schoolchild in America should be forced to listen to wingnut "historian" David Barton? I have a counter-proposal: this video should be required viewing in every church in America until the congregations get it figured out.
Was it Newt Gingrich who thought that every schoolchild in America should be forced to listen to wingnut "historian" David Barton? I have a counter-proposal: this video should be required viewing in every church in America until the congregations get it figured out.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Desperation
It's what you find when a "cause" is tanking. It seems NOM is threatening to sue everyone they can think of -- now it's the Miss California organization for releasing Carrie Prejean's sex tapes.
They've also threatened NOM defector Louis Marinelli with legal action. For what? Telling the truth?
I wonder if it has anything to do with this?
They've also threatened NOM defector Louis Marinelli with legal action. For what? Telling the truth?
I wonder if it has anything to do with this?
Liberty
The idea that the teabaggers and religious right wingnuts are actually interested in liberty should by now be shown up for the sick joke that it is.
Let's start off with this clip from Rachel Maddow:
Add in the book challenges in libraries -- school and public -- every year, most of which go unreported. There seems to be quite a cottage industry in this area, as a matter of fact, with librarians making pre-emptive strikes -- or trying to until they get caught.
What this reveals is an ugly mindset, antithetical to everything that America stands for -- these people (meaning the so-called "conservatives" who are trying not only to censor ideas but to eradicate them) are not content with avoiding things they object to, or forbidding their children to experience them, but insist that no one, child or adult, may have access to them.
These are extremists, and one finds a similar mindset on the extreme left. Actually, it needn't even be that extreme. They won't burn books, but they'll try to silence those who aren't politically correct enough. I call it the "What will the neighbors think?" syndrome: it's those who want to eliminate the drag queens, leather folk and nearly naked dancers from Gay Pride parades, for example, so that we'll be more "acceptable." Thankfully, their voices seem to be fading, but I had occasion to pose this question in a comment thread recently: "Acceptable" on whose terms -- how much of yourself are you willing to give up to be tolerated?
But I digress.
Granted, those who physically attacked works of art are seriously disturbed people, but that disturbance has to have an anchor point. For them, that anchor is the same attitude that infects people like Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher, Peter Sprigg, Peter LaBarbera, and their ilk.
Why do you suppose they get all the air-time?
Let's start off with this clip from Rachel Maddow:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Add in the book challenges in libraries -- school and public -- every year, most of which go unreported. There seems to be quite a cottage industry in this area, as a matter of fact, with librarians making pre-emptive strikes -- or trying to until they get caught.
What this reveals is an ugly mindset, antithetical to everything that America stands for -- these people (meaning the so-called "conservatives" who are trying not only to censor ideas but to eradicate them) are not content with avoiding things they object to, or forbidding their children to experience them, but insist that no one, child or adult, may have access to them.
These are extremists, and one finds a similar mindset on the extreme left. Actually, it needn't even be that extreme. They won't burn books, but they'll try to silence those who aren't politically correct enough. I call it the "What will the neighbors think?" syndrome: it's those who want to eliminate the drag queens, leather folk and nearly naked dancers from Gay Pride parades, for example, so that we'll be more "acceptable." Thankfully, their voices seem to be fading, but I had occasion to pose this question in a comment thread recently: "Acceptable" on whose terms -- how much of yourself are you willing to give up to be tolerated?
But I digress.
Granted, those who physically attacked works of art are seriously disturbed people, but that disturbance has to have an anchor point. For them, that anchor is the same attitude that infects people like Tony Perkins, Maggie Gallagher, Peter Sprigg, Peter LaBarbera, and their ilk.
Why do you suppose they get all the air-time?
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Trends
Nate Silver has a very clear exposition of the current trends in support for same-sex marriage, and some observations on the Republicans now finding themselves in a quandary on that and related gay issues.
I've been seeing this coming for a while, and it's nice to have someone like Silver pointing it out. It will be interesting to see what happens to the "social conservatives" in 2012.
This is especially interesting in light of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives taking time off from their busy job-creation schedule (ahem!) to defend the unconscionable DOMA in court. Good luck with that.
I've been seeing this coming for a while, and it's nice to have someone like Silver pointing it out. It will be interesting to see what happens to the "social conservatives" in 2012.
This is especially interesting in light of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives taking time off from their busy job-creation schedule (ahem!) to defend the unconscionable DOMA in court. Good luck with that.
The Lower Depths
That's where it seems we'll find the anti-marriage faction. This one's been around for a couple of days: it seems that someone has made a documentary on the Question 1 campaign in Maine, and guess what: the head of Yes on One admits that they were lying through their teeth:
Courtesy of Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, and the subject of a blistering post (blistering for Hooper, anyway).
Marc Mutty, the man featured in the video, is also an employee of the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, "on leave" to enforce Church doctrine on the citizens of Maine.
This is the sort of thing that should be getting national press coverage, if we had a press.
Update: See also this post from Alvin McEwen at Pam's House Blend on Maggie Gallagher's appearance before the House Committee on Preserving Heterosexual Privilege. It's not just in Maine. I actually watched part of her testimony -- she's quite personable. But then, sociopaths are.
Courtesy of Jeremy Hooper at Good As You, and the subject of a blistering post (blistering for Hooper, anyway).
Marc Mutty, the man featured in the video, is also an employee of the Catholic Archdiocese of Portland, "on leave" to enforce Church doctrine on the citizens of Maine.
This is the sort of thing that should be getting national press coverage, if we had a press.
Update: See also this post from Alvin McEwen at Pam's House Blend on Maggie Gallagher's appearance before the House Committee on Preserving Heterosexual Privilege. It's not just in Maine. I actually watched part of her testimony -- she's quite personable. But then, sociopaths are.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Another Deficit Post
I don't remember whether I've directed you to this column by Paul Krugman, but if not, you should read it. If so, you should read it again. It's pretty tough. Here's the conclusion:
For what it’s worth, polls suggest that the public’s priorities are nothing like those embodied in the Republican budget. Large majorities support higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Large majorities — including a majority of Republicans — also oppose major changes to Medicare. Of course, the poll that matters is the one on Election Day. But that’s all the more reason to make the 2012 election a clear choice between visions.
Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.
This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.
So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.
Events have gone a long way toward quenching my normally unquenchable optimism: the system's gotten corrupted. I say it that way because I still think the system -- the basic system of our society as it was cast by the Founders and shaped by the 230 years of our history since -- is still valid. But we have political parties that have lost sight of their ideologies -- which once upon a time really did embody different visions of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number -- and become completely focused on gaining and maintaining power. They are both in the service of those whose sole interest is in gaining and maintaining wealth. And they're aided and abetted by a press that is also more concerned with maintaining its position than doing its job -- and that position is dependent on the goodwill of those it should be confronting.
One of the most visible symptoms is the way in which reality has been warped and how that warped reality affects the flow of information. I got an e-mail from my junior senator the other day that typifies the nonsense:
S&P Issued a Pessimistic Outlook for the Value of U.S. Debt
We Have Been Warned
S&P Today: “if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then (2013), this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.”
The Case of Canada
The Case of the United States
For what it’s worth, polls suggest that the public’s priorities are nothing like those embodied in the Republican budget. Large majorities support higher, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Large majorities — including a majority of Republicans — also oppose major changes to Medicare. Of course, the poll that matters is the one on Election Day. But that’s all the more reason to make the 2012 election a clear choice between visions.
Which brings me to those calls for a bipartisan solution. Sorry to be cynical, but right now “bipartisan” is usually code for assembling some conservative Democrats and ultraconservative Republicans — all of them with close ties to the wealthy, and many who are wealthy themselves — and having them proclaim that low taxes on high incomes and drastic cuts in social insurance are the only possible solution.
This would be a corrupt, undemocratic way to make decisions about the shape of our society even if those involved really were wise men with a deep grasp of the issues. It’s much worse when many of those at the table are the sort of people who solicit and believe the kind of policy analyses that the Heritage Foundation supplies.
So let’s not be civil. Instead, let’s have a frank discussion of our differences. In particular, if Democrats believe that Republicans are talking cruel nonsense, they should say so — and take their case to the voters.
Events have gone a long way toward quenching my normally unquenchable optimism: the system's gotten corrupted. I say it that way because I still think the system -- the basic system of our society as it was cast by the Founders and shaped by the 230 years of our history since -- is still valid. But we have political parties that have lost sight of their ideologies -- which once upon a time really did embody different visions of achieving the greatest good for the greatest number -- and become completely focused on gaining and maintaining power. They are both in the service of those whose sole interest is in gaining and maintaining wealth. And they're aided and abetted by a press that is also more concerned with maintaining its position than doing its job -- and that position is dependent on the goodwill of those it should be confronting.
One of the most visible symptoms is the way in which reality has been warped and how that warped reality affects the flow of information. I got an e-mail from my junior senator the other day that typifies the nonsense:
S&P Issued a Pessimistic Outlook for the Value of U.S. Debt
We Have Been Warned
S&P Today: “if an agreement is not reached and meaningful implementation is not begun by then (2013), this would in our view render the U.S. fiscal profile meaningfully weaker than that of peer ‘AAA’ sovereigns.”
Dear Friends:
S&P just announced a negative outlook for the future of U.S. debt – a warning that if we do not stop spending, a crisis could come.
The rate of U.S. spending and debt is unsustainable -- our economy is on a dangerous course. We are borrowing $4 billion a day and will pay our creditors over $200 billion just in interest payments this year.
In times of crisis, we face a choice: 1) raise taxes and provide government bailouts, or 2) cut spending and enact pro-growth policies. I strongly support cutting spending.
The Case of Ireland
If we do not change course, we face the fate of many European debtors. Take the case of Ireland. During the economic downturn, Ireland guaranteed the debts of its banks – essentially a bailout. Ireland increased spending and borrowing while its tax revenues shrunk. In response, Moody’s cut Ireland’s debt rating.
The price of Ireland’s bad government was paid by the people of Ireland. In August 2010, Ireland issued 40% fewer mortgages than before. Residential and commercial lending fell so fast that Ireland’s state-run National Asset Management Agency stepped in to find a way lend something to someone.
Lenders charged the Irish taxpayer more and more for the privilege of spending other people’s money.
The Case of Canada
Compare this to Canada. When faced with the same dilemma, Canada cut spending during its 1990s economic crisis. After Moody’s downgraded Canada’s foreign debt rating in 1994, the Canadian government cut 20% of federal spending. Because Canadian leaders waited until after their debt situation reached a crisis, they had to eliminate 40,000 public sector jobs.
Canada’s tough choices lowered borrowing costs and strengthened the country as the government sought pro-growth solutions. In fact, Canada came out of the recent financial crisis healthier than most other countries – lenders charged less and less, with new confidence that Canada had its act together.
The Case of the United States
We now face similar choices. To protect you and your income, I think we should follow Canada’s fiscally responsible path and avoid the drop in incomes suffered by the Irish people. If the government makes hard choices now, you will be protected from hard choices later.
In Ireland, the government said ‘yes’ to everyone and ‘no’ to its economic future. In Canada, the government learned that restraint and responsibility led to a very bright future.
With today’s report from S&P, we Americans have been warned.
Thank you for your continued interest in these important issues. As always, please feel free to contact me at (312) 886-3506 or online at kirk.senate.gov if you have any questions or comments, or should issues of concern to you come before the Congress.
It is an honor to serve you in the U.S. Senate.
Very truly yours,
Mark Kirk
U.S. Senate
Now, for Standard & Poor, see this post from Dave Dayen at Firedoglake, which I think contains a dose of healthy scepticism:
The Dow is down 2% today on the news. Incidentally, this is not the first US credit downgrade threat that I recall; Moody’s threatened this in March 2010. The difference is that we’re in the throes of deficit fever now.
It seems like a rather convenient announcement, no? We’re right at the start of a discussion on the federal budget, and here comes S&P, which derives most of its revenue from the financial industry, warning that if the parties don’t come together on a deficit reduction scheme, they’ll downgrade debt. Of course, since the Republicans are more inflexible, Democrats will be persuaded by serious people to do the responsible thing and drop the revenue increases for the sake of protecting the AAA rating. And this would have wide-ranging effects: practically every other bond sold in this country that’s rated AAA, such as municipal bonds, would be downgraded as well.
I think at this point it’s prudent to call everyone’s attention to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on the financial crisis, and its ample section on the rating agencies, and their complete failure to accurately rate mortgage bond products that were obviously unstable. In fact, Standard & Poor’s is specifically targeted in that report. Why rating agencies still exist is a pertinent question, given their contribution to the near-ruination of the global economy. In particular, the report hones in on the inaccurate models of the rating agencies:
In another post, Dayen comments further on the threat and the reactions:
The reaction to S&P’s warning of a debt downgrade has been as predictable as it was swift. Paul Ryan responded that the debt “threatens not only the livelihoods of future generations, but also the economic security of American families today.” Eric Cantor described the S&P action as “a wake-up call.” House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, another “Young Gun,” said pretty much the same thing. It’s all very precious. An entity funded by the big banks makes a judgment (which shouldn’t be seen apart from their other discredited judgments) about the debt. The party most allied with the big banks uses that judgment to demand that their preferred policy, which doesn’t reduce the national debt for THIRTY YEARS, must be enacted immediately. Incidentally, that preferred policy reduces taxes on the rich, including the rich executives at the big banks.
Here's Krugman on Standard & Poor.
Now, Kirk's heart is sometimes in the right place, but as far as the economic picture goes, he seems to be less savvy than I am, and that's pretty unsavvy. (Or he thinks his constituents are gullible fools. He may have a point there -- he got elected.)
There's an underlying point here, and one that Kirk's staffers know, because I bring it up every time I contact him: where are the jobs? We're not going to solve the deficit until we have a working economy, and, in contravention to the Truth as promulgated by the Villagers, we're not going to have a working economy until there are workers pumping money into it. It's not the bankers that drive the economy -- in fact, they are part of the problem -- it's us working stiffs.
Note that Kirk does not bring up Germany in his little scare memo: Germany regulates banks pretty closely, it has strong unions, and a strong safety net, so that even when people are out of work, they are still able to participate in the economy.
And yet someone like Paul Ryan comes out with this crap that he calls "Path to Prosperity" or "Roadmap to America's Future" or some such shit that is just a corporate minion's wet dream and everyone in Washington is awed by the audacity of his vision. Gods save us.
Gah! That's all I can stand this morning. The reason I've been commenting so much on gay news is that that's the only place where anything good is happening, believe it or not.
I'm going to spend the rest of the day reading real fantasy -- the kind with real heroes.
Update: It's not like nobody saw this coming:
Our story was a newspaper series and then a bestselling book, America: What Went Wrong? that caused a sensation in the early 1990s by explaining to millions of middle-class Americans why they were losing ground, and why it wasn’t their fault. A:WWW pinned the blame squarely on an alliance between Washington and Wall Street that was implementing policies that were destroying good-paying jobs and eroding hard-earned benefits.
America: What Went Wrong? was controversial. We took plenty of heat from some economists and others who claimed that the agony millions were experiencing had nothing to do with policy, but was just one of those rough patches America had to go through as our economy reinvented itself.
But to thousands of Americans who wrote to us, America: What Went Wrong? explained what had happened to them — and why things might get even worse.
Now, for Standard & Poor, see this post from Dave Dayen at Firedoglake, which I think contains a dose of healthy scepticism:
The Dow is down 2% today on the news. Incidentally, this is not the first US credit downgrade threat that I recall; Moody’s threatened this in March 2010. The difference is that we’re in the throes of deficit fever now.
It seems like a rather convenient announcement, no? We’re right at the start of a discussion on the federal budget, and here comes S&P, which derives most of its revenue from the financial industry, warning that if the parties don’t come together on a deficit reduction scheme, they’ll downgrade debt. Of course, since the Republicans are more inflexible, Democrats will be persuaded by serious people to do the responsible thing and drop the revenue increases for the sake of protecting the AAA rating. And this would have wide-ranging effects: practically every other bond sold in this country that’s rated AAA, such as municipal bonds, would be downgraded as well.
I think at this point it’s prudent to call everyone’s attention to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on the financial crisis, and its ample section on the rating agencies, and their complete failure to accurately rate mortgage bond products that were obviously unstable. In fact, Standard & Poor’s is specifically targeted in that report. Why rating agencies still exist is a pertinent question, given their contribution to the near-ruination of the global economy. In particular, the report hones in on the inaccurate models of the rating agencies:
The conflict of interest problem was not the only reason that Moody’s and S&P issued inaccurate RMBS and CDO credit ratings. Another problem was that the credit rating models they used were flawed. Over time, from 2004 to 2006, S&P and Moody’s revised their rating models, but never enough to produce accurate forecasts of the coming wave of mortgage delinquencies and defaults.
In another post, Dayen comments further on the threat and the reactions:
The reaction to S&P’s warning of a debt downgrade has been as predictable as it was swift. Paul Ryan responded that the debt “threatens not only the livelihoods of future generations, but also the economic security of American families today.” Eric Cantor described the S&P action as “a wake-up call.” House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, another “Young Gun,” said pretty much the same thing. It’s all very precious. An entity funded by the big banks makes a judgment (which shouldn’t be seen apart from their other discredited judgments) about the debt. The party most allied with the big banks uses that judgment to demand that their preferred policy, which doesn’t reduce the national debt for THIRTY YEARS, must be enacted immediately. Incidentally, that preferred policy reduces taxes on the rich, including the rich executives at the big banks.
Here's Krugman on Standard & Poor.
Now, Kirk's heart is sometimes in the right place, but as far as the economic picture goes, he seems to be less savvy than I am, and that's pretty unsavvy. (Or he thinks his constituents are gullible fools. He may have a point there -- he got elected.)
There's an underlying point here, and one that Kirk's staffers know, because I bring it up every time I contact him: where are the jobs? We're not going to solve the deficit until we have a working economy, and, in contravention to the Truth as promulgated by the Villagers, we're not going to have a working economy until there are workers pumping money into it. It's not the bankers that drive the economy -- in fact, they are part of the problem -- it's us working stiffs.
Note that Kirk does not bring up Germany in his little scare memo: Germany regulates banks pretty closely, it has strong unions, and a strong safety net, so that even when people are out of work, they are still able to participate in the economy.
And yet someone like Paul Ryan comes out with this crap that he calls "Path to Prosperity" or "Roadmap to America's Future" or some such shit that is just a corporate minion's wet dream and everyone in Washington is awed by the audacity of his vision. Gods save us.
Gah! That's all I can stand this morning. The reason I've been commenting so much on gay news is that that's the only place where anything good is happening, believe it or not.
I'm going to spend the rest of the day reading real fantasy -- the kind with real heroes.
Update: It's not like nobody saw this coming:
Our story was a newspaper series and then a bestselling book, America: What Went Wrong? that caused a sensation in the early 1990s by explaining to millions of middle-class Americans why they were losing ground, and why it wasn’t their fault. A:WWW pinned the blame squarely on an alliance between Washington and Wall Street that was implementing policies that were destroying good-paying jobs and eroding hard-earned benefits.
America: What Went Wrong? was controversial. We took plenty of heat from some economists and others who claimed that the agony millions were experiencing had nothing to do with policy, but was just one of those rough patches America had to go through as our economy reinvented itself.
But to thousands of Americans who wrote to us, America: What Went Wrong? explained what had happened to them — and why things might get even worse.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
I < 3 Anthony Weiner
I wonder how many millions the Koch brothers are going to spend trying to get rid of him.
I'm really sort of amazed (well, not really all that amazed) at the pearl-clutching on the right about Obama slamming the Ryan Roadmap to the Banana Republic. The whole proposal sucks, so why should he make nice about it? And then some of the most vicious Democrat-baiters in Congress start complaining about partisanship.
I like this part especially:
Still, Republicans said, did Obama have to attack the men to their faces? “Reagan had the decency to insult his enemies when he was out of town,” grumbled one GOP aide.
My mama always said "If you're going to criticize someone, do it to their face and not behind their back." We see where the Republicans are coming down on the issue.
I think Mika Brzezinski had it exactly right: Obama in fact was being unusually respectful in inviting Ryan and his cohorts to hear directly what he had to say, because he doesn't believe in doing things the Republican way: Slamming people not to their faces but waiting till they're not around and can't answer.
It's just such a radical concept for Republicans that they become utterly flabbergasted when confronted with it.
It really would be nice to have a free press in this country, so more people could know what's actually going on.
Update: Here's Jonathan Chait's take. Read the comments. Here's my favorite, which puts the whole thing in perspective:
Harry Truman - “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”
Adlai Stevenson - "We should make a deal with Republicans - if they'll stop lying about our policies, we'll stop telling the truth about theirs."
I'm really sort of amazed (well, not really all that amazed) at the pearl-clutching on the right about Obama slamming the Ryan Roadmap to the Banana Republic. The whole proposal sucks, so why should he make nice about it? And then some of the most vicious Democrat-baiters in Congress start complaining about partisanship.
I like this part especially:
Still, Republicans said, did Obama have to attack the men to their faces? “Reagan had the decency to insult his enemies when he was out of town,” grumbled one GOP aide.
My mama always said "If you're going to criticize someone, do it to their face and not behind their back." We see where the Republicans are coming down on the issue.
I think Mika Brzezinski had it exactly right: Obama in fact was being unusually respectful in inviting Ryan and his cohorts to hear directly what he had to say, because he doesn't believe in doing things the Republican way: Slamming people not to their faces but waiting till they're not around and can't answer.
It's just such a radical concept for Republicans that they become utterly flabbergasted when confronted with it.
It really would be nice to have a free press in this country, so more people could know what's actually going on.
Update: Here's Jonathan Chait's take. Read the comments. Here's my favorite, which puts the whole thing in perspective:
Harry Truman - “I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.”
Adlai Stevenson - "We should make a deal with Republicans - if they'll stop lying about our policies, we'll stop telling the truth about theirs."
Saturday, April 16, 2011
The DOMA Circus
Also known as congressional hearings. My first reaction when I heard that the teabaggers were doing this was "WTF?" Here are Rep. Jerrold Nadler's opening remarks:
I wish I had footage of some of the reactions. This should be fun.
I wish I had footage of some of the reactions. This should be fun.
When Dealing With Wingnuts
the best strategy is to raise the stakes. You may know that the Proponents of Prop 8 filed a motion in the Circuit Court to recall all video recordings of the trial in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger and put them under seal. Now the Plaintiffs in the case have filed a response.
10-16696 Appellees Opp
I have to confess, my first reaction when I ran across this at AmericaBlog Gay was to laugh outright. Timothy Kincaid managed to pop off a post wondering how anyone could be so stupid before he had his giggle fit.
Here's a report of Vaughan Walker's reaction to the Proponents' complaint.
The Plaintiffs' response, of course, is the only possible one: you rebut their arguments (no hard task, in this cases) and then go for the throat.
Sidebar: ran across this piece at Evangelical Outpost when I was looking for a link to a story about the Proponents' filing. Worth a read -- very clear exposition of the basics of the case.
10-16696 Appellees Opp
I have to confess, my first reaction when I ran across this at AmericaBlog Gay was to laugh outright. Timothy Kincaid managed to pop off a post wondering how anyone could be so stupid before he had his giggle fit.
Here's a report of Vaughan Walker's reaction to the Proponents' complaint.
The Plaintiffs' response, of course, is the only possible one: you rebut their arguments (no hard task, in this cases) and then go for the throat.
Sidebar: ran across this piece at Evangelical Outpost when I was looking for a link to a story about the Proponents' filing. Worth a read -- very clear exposition of the basics of the case.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Made My Day
This is just priceless -- I think some of the House Democrats must have a sense of humor like mine.
The vote was on the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget -- a radical plan that annihilates the social contract in America by putting the GOP budget on steroids. Deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, more severe entitlement rollbacks.
Normally something like that would fail by a large bipartisan margin in either the House or the Senate. Conservative Republicans would vote for it, but it would be defeated by a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. But today that formula didn't hold. In an attempt to highlight deep divides in the Republican caucus. Dems switched their votes -- from "no" to "present."
Panic ensued. In the House, legislation passes by a simple majority of members voting. The Dems took themselves out of the equation, leaving Republicans to decide whether the House should adopt the more-conservative RSC budget instead of the one authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. As Dems flipped to present, Republicans realized that a majority of their members had indeed gone on the record in support of the RSC plan -- and if the vote closed, it would pass. That would be a slap in the face to Ryan, and a politically toxic outcome for the Republican party.
This is the prize, though:
Moments after it failed, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan took to Facebook.
"Our Republican Study Committee (RSC) balanced budget came within 18 votes of passing on the House Floor today," he wrote. "I am disappointed we did not win, but this is the closest we have ever been to passing our balanced budget. I am motivated to keep fighting to balance the budget and begin paying down our national debt."
The question of the day is, "How dumb do you have to be to get elected to the House as a teabagger?"
The chaos, as TPM calls it:
Thanks to Joe.My.God.
Update: Here's WaPo on what did pass:
The House on Friday passed a Republican budget plan for 2012 aimed at privatizing Medicare and dramatically scaling back the size of the federal government.
Voting along party lines, the House approved the $3.5 trillion GOP blueprint 235 to 193 after final debate was repeatedly interrupted by protesters chanting and singing in the gallery. Four Republicans joined all Democrats in voting “no.”
How is it that when four Republicans join the Democrats in a vote, it's "along party lines," but when four Democrats join the Republicans, it's "bipartisan"?
The vote was on the Republican Study Committee's alternative budget -- a radical plan that annihilates the social contract in America by putting the GOP budget on steroids. Deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, more severe entitlement rollbacks.
Normally something like that would fail by a large bipartisan margin in either the House or the Senate. Conservative Republicans would vote for it, but it would be defeated by a coalition of Democrats and more moderate Republicans. But today that formula didn't hold. In an attempt to highlight deep divides in the Republican caucus. Dems switched their votes -- from "no" to "present."
Panic ensued. In the House, legislation passes by a simple majority of members voting. The Dems took themselves out of the equation, leaving Republicans to decide whether the House should adopt the more-conservative RSC budget instead of the one authored by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. As Dems flipped to present, Republicans realized that a majority of their members had indeed gone on the record in support of the RSC plan -- and if the vote closed, it would pass. That would be a slap in the face to Ryan, and a politically toxic outcome for the Republican party.
This is the prize, though:
Moments after it failed, RSC Chairman Jim Jordan took to Facebook.
"Our Republican Study Committee (RSC) balanced budget came within 18 votes of passing on the House Floor today," he wrote. "I am disappointed we did not win, but this is the closest we have ever been to passing our balanced budget. I am motivated to keep fighting to balance the budget and begin paying down our national debt."
The question of the day is, "How dumb do you have to be to get elected to the House as a teabagger?"
The chaos, as TPM calls it:
Thanks to Joe.My.God.
Update: Here's WaPo on what did pass:
The House on Friday passed a Republican budget plan for 2012 aimed at privatizing Medicare and dramatically scaling back the size of the federal government.
Voting along party lines, the House approved the $3.5 trillion GOP blueprint 235 to 193 after final debate was repeatedly interrupted by protesters chanting and singing in the gallery. Four Republicans joined all Democrats in voting “no.”
How is it that when four Republicans join the Democrats in a vote, it's "along party lines," but when four Democrats join the Republicans, it's "bipartisan"?
Isn't It Nice
when people who break the law actually get arrested, no matter who they work for?
The News of the World reacted to the unexpected arrest of one of its most senior reporters by clearing his desk.
Despite the paper having promised that it would co-operate fully with police inquiries, executives descended on the desk of former news editor James Weatherup moments after learning of his arrest. Under the eyes of their legal team, they bagged up notebooks, papers and recording machines and removed them "via our lawyers", a firm whose identity the publisher refused to confirm.
A few hours later, the police arrived and took the bags to Scotland Yard. Detectives also conducted a search in the tabloid newsroom while staff were asked to decamp to a nearby bar.
The unexpected arrest of Weatherup, one of the most senior journalists at the News of the World, at his home leaves little room for doubt that the new police team investigating the phone-hacking scandal is determined to succeed where its much-criticised predecessors failed.
Can't happen here.
The News of the World reacted to the unexpected arrest of one of its most senior reporters by clearing his desk.
Despite the paper having promised that it would co-operate fully with police inquiries, executives descended on the desk of former news editor James Weatherup moments after learning of his arrest. Under the eyes of their legal team, they bagged up notebooks, papers and recording machines and removed them "via our lawyers", a firm whose identity the publisher refused to confirm.
A few hours later, the police arrived and took the bags to Scotland Yard. Detectives also conducted a search in the tabloid newsroom while staff were asked to decamp to a nearby bar.
The unexpected arrest of Weatherup, one of the most senior journalists at the News of the World, at his home leaves little room for doubt that the new police team investigating the phone-hacking scandal is determined to succeed where its much-criticised predecessors failed.
Can't happen here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)