tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29020501694661949862024-03-12T18:55:49.081-05:00TIBU2.COMTIBU2.COM- REBOOTED. REBRANDED. REBORN.TIBU2.COMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05510741668545879483noreply@blogger.comBlogger2111125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-54970548412318342692014-05-02T11:08:00.001-05:002014-05-02T11:08:22.344-05:00The Alan Parsons Project- A Dream Within A Dream (+playlist)<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/LldFOmdk8Zc" width="459"></iframe>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02247960790456136003noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-86611955938216365962014-02-27T10:15:00.001-06:002014-02-27T10:15:49.650-06:00For Religious Conservatives, the War Against Gay Rights is Already Lost<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ok3hSvlhAG8/Uw9hqzLO3OI/AAAAAAAAJF4/1HlzFJhtMtw/s1600/Michele_Bachmann.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ok3hSvlhAG8/Uw9hqzLO3OI/AAAAAAAAJF4/1HlzFJhtMtw/s1600/Michele_Bachmann.jpg" height="239" width="360" /></a></div>One of the more enjoyable aspects of the recent and rapid advance of gay<br />
rights over the past few years -- and the past few months in particular<br />
-- has been watching the Baghdad Bob-like insistence on the far-right <br />
that the battle against the Homosexual Menace can still be won. For <br />
those of you who might not remember, "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf" target="_blank" title="Wikipedia - Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf">Baghdad Bob</a>" was a nickname given to Saddam Hussein's Information Minister Muhammad <span data-scayt_word="Saeed" data-scaytid="5">Saeed</span> <span data-scayt_word="al-Sahhaf" data-scaytid="6">al-Sahhaf</span>. He earned notoriety for being the worst propagandist anyone had ever seen, insisting that the defense of Iraq from the <span data-scayt_word="Dubya" data-scaytid="97">Dubya</span><br />
invasion was going great for Hussein -- at one point telling reporters <br />
there were no Americans in Baghdad while our tanks rolled around in the <br />
background.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The right's approach to the advance of gay rights and gay acceptance has<br />
been complete denial to a ludicrous degree. For people who talk about <br />
liberty and freedom a lot, they sure don't seem to have a lot of use for<br />
them.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
At the head of all this stupid, you're generally going to find Michele Bachmann. Yesterday was no exception.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<b><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/27/bachmann-vetoing-anti-gay-arizona-bill-will-eviscerate-the-rights-of-freedom-of-speech/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29" target="_blank" title="Bachmann: Vetoing anti-gay Arizona bill will 'eviscerate the rights of freedom of speech'">Raw Story</a>:</b> Appearing on CNN’s </i>The Situation Room<i>, and speaking before Arizona governor Jan Brewer <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/26/breaking-arizona-gov-jan-brewer-vetoes-anti-lgbt-law/">vetoed SB 1062</a><br />
which would have effectively legalized discrimination based on <br />
religious grounds, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) explained to Wolf <span data-scayt_word="Blitzer" data-scaytid="179">Blitzer</span> that a veto would “eviscerate” freedom of speech.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Asked by host Blitzer what she thinks Governor Jan Brewer should do with<br />
the bill sitting on her desk, Bachmann replied that we need to have <br />
“tolerance” for people on both sides of the issue.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
“I think what we need to do is respect both sides. We need to respect <br />
both opinions,” Bachmann replied. “And just like we need to observe <br />
tolerance for the gay and lesbian community, we need to have tolerance <br />
for the community of people who hold sincerely held religious belief.”</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Let's get one thing straight right off the bat: the right to discriminate is <i>not</i><br />
religious freedom. It's the opposite. When you give everyone the right <br />
to be as oppressive as their dark, hating hearts desire, the result is <br />
not more freedom, but more oppression. This is what Libertarians <br />
constantly fail to understand and this is why hate-filled intellectual <br />
lightweights like Bachmann love Libertarian arguments so much. They <br />
aren't pro-freedom, they're pro-oppression. It's the same with the <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="225">Obamacare</span><br />
contraception coverage debate -- forcing your employees to abide by <br />
your religious beliefs is not religious freedom, it's state-sanctioned <br />
religious oppression.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So when a Bible-beating dope like Bachmann tells you something is about <br />
freedom or liberty, it's not. It's about the opposite. If Michele <br />
Bachmann gave a damn about religious liberty, she wouldn't be such a <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/169001/michele-bachmanns-mccarthyite-witch-hunt-against-muslims-sharia-law" target="_blank" title="Michele Bachmann's McCarthyite Witch Hunt Against Muslims, 'Sharia Law'">tireless fearmonger</a> when it came to Muslims.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But the bigger and dumber argument is that we have to tolerate the intolerance of bigots like Bachmann and other <span data-scayt_word="SB1062" data-scaytid="229">SB1062</span><br />
supporters -- or we are ourselves intolerant. This is an incredibly <br />
stupid argument specifically designed to turn logic on its head. It <br />
would make the people denouncing white supremacists or <br />
counter-protesters at a <span data-scayt_word="Westboro" data-scaytid="407">Westboro</span> Baptist funeral protest the <i>real</i><br />
bigots. This is not an argument that can survive in the wild. "Tolerate<br />
my intolerance, hater!" is just as stupid and illogical as it sounds <br /><br />
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, similar pro-discrimination bills <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/02/27/3337961/mississippi-scraps-discriminatory-religious-freedom-provisions-backlash-arizona/" target="_blank" title="Mississippi Scraps Discriminatory 'Religious Freedom' Provisions Following Backlash In Arizona">are dropping</a> <a href="http://wabe.org/post/religious-freedom-bill-opposed-lgbt-advocates-likely-dead-georgia-house" target="_blank" title="'Religious Freedom' Bill Opposed By LGBT Advocates Likely Dead In Georgia House">like flies</a><br />
all around the country. None made it as far as Arizona's, so they <br />
didn't get the same amount of coverage. And, as I spent yesterday <a href="http://quickhits.tumblr.com/post/77930650803/after-the-scotus-ruling-in-united-states-v-windsor" target="_blank" title="After the SCOTUS ruling in 'United States v. Windsor' struck down the Defense of Marriage Act as unconstitutional, no challenge to a state law banning marriage equality has failed">pointing out</a>, no challenge to a state same-sex marriage ban has failed since the Supreme Court's <i>Windsor </i>decision -- a fact that handed the Michele <span data-scayt_word="Bachmanns" data-scaytid="439">Bachmanns</span> of the world yet <a href="http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ban-on-gay-marriage-ruled-unconstitutional-5270099.php" target="_blank" title="Texas' ban on gay marriage ruled unconstitutional">another loss</a> yesterday.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The tide in the right's fight against the Creeping Homosexual Menace <br />
isn't turning, it's turned. The war is all but over and the fierce <br />
denials from the homophobe chorus only serve to (barely) delay the <br />
inevitable. Those tanks behind the Baghdad Bob-like Michele Bachmann <br />
aren't from the Religious Conservatives' advance force -- they're flying<br />
rainbow flags.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And it's time for the dead-enders to wave white ones. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="456">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michele_Bachmann.jpg" target="_blank"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="457">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>] </div>Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-7604790798933600462014-02-25T10:25:00.001-06:002014-02-25T10:25:40.852-06:00One Good Reason to Raise the Minimum Wage: the 99% Want Their Money Back<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y5AhRJjhpRs/UwzBidp_86I/AAAAAAAAJFM/fwMzArVKIDk/s1600/liveablewage.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Protesters demand a liveable wage" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-y5AhRJjhpRs/UwzBidp_86I/AAAAAAAAJFM/fwMzArVKIDk/s1600/liveablewage.jpg" height="270" title="Protesters demand a liveable wage" width="360" /></a></div>What's a big factor in driving up deficits and government spending? Lazy, no-good moochers on welfare, getting a free ride.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<b><a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/2/corporate-welfaresubsidiesboeingalcoa.html" target="_blank" title="The shocking numbers behind corporate welfare"><span data-scayt_word="Aljazeera" data-scaytid="363">Aljazeera</span> America</a>:</b><br />
State and local governments have awarded at least $110 billion in <br />
taxpayer subsidies to business, with 3 of every 4 dollars going to fewer<br />
than 1,000 big corporations, the most thorough analysis to date of <br />
corporate welfare revealed today.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Boeing ranks first, with 137 subsidies totaling $13.2 billion, followed <br />
by Alcoa at $5.6 billion, Intel at $3.9 billion, General Motors at $3.5 <br />
billion and Ford Motor at $2.5 billion, the new report by the nonprofit <br />
research organization Good Jobs First <a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/" target="_blank">shows</a>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Dow Chemical had the most subsidies, 410 totaling $1.4 billion, followed<br />
by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway holding company, with 310 valued<br />
at $1.1 billion.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The figures were compiled from disclosures made by state and local <br />
government agencies that subsidize companies in all sorts of ways, <br />
including cash giveaways, building and land transfers, tax abatements <br />
and steep discounts on electric and water bills.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, families in poverty are having trouble getting by -- because <br />
government supposedly can't afford to pay for things like food stamps or<br />
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (<span data-scayt_word="TANF" data-scaytid="364">TANF</span>) program. Welfare reform was supposed to lift people out of poverty, but it's done the opposite. And it was all predictable.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
After Clinton signed welfare reform into law, families were basically <br />
given one chance to get out of poverty, then they'd be trapped there for<br />
life. You had a lifetime cap on welfare payments, then you were on your<br />
own. After Clinton signed the bill into law, payday loan shark <br />
businesses sprouted up like mushrooms all over the nation. These <br />
businesses prey on people in need, trapping them in a debt cycle with <br />
incredible interest rates and eliminating any hope of ever being able to<br />
escape poverty. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/02/21/3316531/welfare-reform-failure-record/">According to <span data-scayt_word="ThinkProgress" data-scaytid="365">ThinkProgress</span></a>, the number of families in poverty who missed out on welfare benefits was 28%. Today, it's 74%.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
As programs to eliminate poverty go, <span data-scayt_word="TANF" data-scaytid="366">TANF</span> -- the program that replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (<span data-scayt_word="AFDC" data-scaytid="367">AFDC</span><br />
or "welfare as we know it") -- blows. It does exactly the opposite of <br />
what was promised. When a handful of people have to switch from crappy <br />
health coverage, that law needs to be scrapped. When a law that was <br />
supposed to reduce poverty instead has families paying loans with <br />
massive interest rates just to stay in a flea bag apartment in the worst<br />
side of town, that law is somehow inviolate. In fact, there's no <br />
shortage of Republicans who'll tell you it has to be made even worse.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But where is money being thrown away here. If Warren Buffet stops <br />
getting a tax credit for merely existing, if the Koch brothers get cut <br />
off from oil subsidies, if Wall Street has to pay higher taxes, are they<br />
going to go broke. Will we see JPMorgan CEO Jamie <span data-scayt_word="Dimon" data-scaytid="368">Dimon</span> living out of a pay-by-the-week motel room, rolling a 40% interest payment over and over just to make the rent?<br /><br />
<br /><br />
I doubt it. Yet they're the ones getting all the welfare. Worse, we <br />
don't even pretend that the handouts we give Wall Street are designed to<br />
get the super-rich's snouts out of the government troughs. Whereas <br />
welfare for people in poverty is supposed to get people off welfare, <br />
handouts for the rich keep coming, no questions asked. Need a tax break <br />
to build your new office complex or hotel? Sure! We don't even need to <br />
check and see if you need the money. Which is good, because it's 100% <br />
guaranteed that you don't.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And here's the thing. No one in government actually keeps track of how <br />
much we spend total in corporate welfare. In order to find out, you have<br />
to do an in-depth study. "The best estimate of total state and local <br />
subsidies comes from Professor Kenneth Thomas, a political scientist at <br />
the University of Missouri at St. Louis. In 2010 he <a href="http://us.macmillan.com/investmentincentivesandtheglobalcompetitionforcapital/KennethPThomas" target="_blank">calculated</a><br />
the annual cost at $70 billion. No serious challenge has been made to <br />
this conservatively calculated figure, which in 2014 dollars comes to <br />
$75 billion. That is about $240 per person — nearly $1,000 annually for a<br />
family of four," <span data-scayt_word="Aljazeera" data-scaytid="369">Aljazeera</span> reports. "That amounts to more than a week’s take-home pay for a median-income family with two parents and two children."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
That's a massive transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1%. A huge heist<br />
that goes on every day, unreported and untracked. "Class warfare" is <br />
actually underselling it. We've created an American aristocracy.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
A grand a family and what do we have to show for it? Income inequality <br />
at historic levels. All this corporate welfare doesn't seem to be doing <br />
one <span data-scayt_word="helluva" data-scaytid="370">helluva</span> <br />
lot, other giving wealthy money-hoarders more money to hoard. At this <br />
point, raising the minimum wage would be justified even if the economy <br />
was going gangbusters -- just as a way to force these platinum-plated <br />
welfare queens to pay a few of the taxpayers back. At least them we'd <br />
get <i>something</i> back from this massive raid on taxpayers' <br />
pocketbooks. We need to do much. much more to level the playing field <br />
and actually get people out of poverty, but raising the minimum wage <br />
would be a good start and the very least we can do. Those wages will be <br />
spent, benefiting everyone.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
We've got our welfare policy <span data-scayt_word="bass-ackwards" data-scaytid="371">bass-ackwards</span><br />
and wrong. Unless we turn it completely around, things are never going <br />
to get any better. Raising the minimum wage is a step toward reversing a<br />
transfer of wealth that's moving in entirely the wrong direction.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="372">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/otto-yamamoto/10470892823/" target="_blank"><i>photo via The <span data-scayt_word="All-Nite" data-scaytid="431">All-Nite</span> Images</i></a>] </div>Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-8063886627150661352014-02-05T09:32:00.001-06:002014-02-05T09:32:36.728-06:00Better Pay, More Independent Workers -- No Wonder GOP Hates Obamacare<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SXxw908hB8M/UvJVmPVdI1I/AAAAAAAAJCI/A_K24FNaads/s1600/weheartobamacare.jpg" imageanchor="1" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Pro-Obamacare demonstrators" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SXxw908hB8M/UvJVmPVdI1I/AAAAAAAAJCI/A_K24FNaads/s1600/weheartobamacare.jpg" height="270" title="Pro-Obamacare demonstrators" width="360" /></a></div>The bad news keeps coming for the <span data-scayt_word="anti-Obamacare" data-scaytid="1">anti-Obamacare</span> right. Not only did a Congressional Budget Office report released yesterday detail how the Affordable Care Care would <a href="http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2014/02/does-cbo-report-really-say-obamacare.html" target="_blank" title="Does a CBO report really say Obamacare means 2 million will lose their jobs? In a word, no">empower workers to work fewer hours if they chose</a>, but further examination of the report finds even more good news for America's working people. <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cbo-wages" target="_blank" title="How Obamacare Could Be A Boon For Workers, According To CBO">Talking Points Memo's Dylan Scott is once again on the ball</a>:<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<span data-scayt_word="TPM" data-scaytid="2">TPM</span> spoke with... top economists who agreed with [this] analysis: People choosing to work less because of <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="4">Obamacare</span>, as <span data-scayt_word="CBO" data-scaytid="5">CBO</span> projects, would mean higher wages.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
"That stands to reason. You get this sorting effect," Dean Baker, co-founder of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research. "You have a lot of people working now who don't want to work. The only way they can get insurance is through their employer."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Those people retire or cut back their hours or otherwise lower their participation in the labor market -- a possibility that <span data-scayt_word="CBO" data-scaytid="6">CBO</span> raised itself -- reducing the labor supply. Over the long term, that drives up wages. Baker said that <span data-scayt_word="CBO" data-scaytid="7">CBO</span> said as much in its analysis: The report projected that total hours worked would drop by as much as 2 percent by 2024 because of <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="8">Obamacare</span>, but total compensation would fall only 1 percent.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Supply and demand: reality's greatest defender -- at least, in matters economic.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
It's a pretty simple concept; if American workers work fewer hours, that doesn't mean that the workload they used to carry no longer needs to get done. As the supply of work hours drops, the demand automatically rises. When demand for labor rises, wages rise. Workers can demand more to work the same hours -- although in reality this will probably manifest as employer-designed incentive programs to keep employees at the workplace longer. Workers won't have to actually make that demand, because employers will beat them to the punch with the offer.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
This has always been at the heart of Republican <span data-scayt_word="fearmongering" data-scaytid="22">fearmongering</span> over <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="24">Obamacare</span>. Before, many employees were trapped in jobs they didn't like or were working more hours than they preferred, because leaving or cutting back would mean losing their necessary health insurance. If insurance is no longer contingent on full-time employment, workers are free to pursue other interests, create more family-friendly work schedules, cut back to part time as the get closer to retirement, or even retire earlier. Employers do not like this and the big corporations who make up the GOP's funding base are big employers.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The ironic thing is that this all plays to the sort of things that Republicans are always talking about. It's not hard to foresee an increase in entrepreneurship, as employees leave companies or cut back hours to pursue their dreams. We'll probably see growth in self-employed or partially self-employed workers. American workers will be able to be more independent, more self-reliant, more able to take the risks required to start up a small business.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But of course when Republicans talk about this stuff, it's all happy <span data-scayt_word="horsecrap" data-scaytid="275">horsecrap</span>. It's a sales pitch, not an aspiration. If you still need proof of that, I don't know what to tell you. Why do they want to repeal a law that will increase entrepreneurship -- oh, and decreases the deficit at the same time? You think the big businesses the GOP represents wants a whole bunch of small businesses popping up and competing with them?<br /><br />
<br /><br />
When the <span data-scayt_word="CBO" data-scaytid="372">CBO</span> report came out yesterday, <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-cbo-jobs-reporting" target="_blank" title="The Best Of The Bad Reporting On Obamacare, The CBO And Jobs">the initial reporting on it was terrible</a> -- journalistic malpractice, pure and simple. But the earlier crap reporting by the mainstream press is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/" target="_blank" title="No, CBO did not say Obamacare will kill 2 million jobs">being corrected</a>, while the more partisan media outlets never get it right anyway. If you watch Fox News, you <i>want</i> to be lied to and you'll hate <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="550">Obamacare</span> no matter what. And of course, reality will do some heavy lifting when 2 million jobs fail to evaporate and employees' compensation begins to rise.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
That's the problem with spin -- eventually, it'll be proven wrong. Especially when it's based on a deliberate misunderstanding of the facts.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="503">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ladawnaspics/7029981403/"><i>photo by <span data-scayt_word="LaDawna" data-scaytid="567">LaDawna</span> Howard</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-42103563201273239192014-02-04T09:46:00.001-06:002014-02-04T09:53:44.928-06:00Tea Party on RiNO Safari in Kentucky<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KwkOPvKi6L4/UvEGxYWUziI/AAAAAAAAJBo/TZqeLJYVeCI/s1600/byemitch.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Mitch McConnell" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KwkOPvKi6L4/UvEGxYWUziI/AAAAAAAAJBo/TZqeLJYVeCI/s1600/byemitch.jpg" height="239" title="Mitch McConnell" width="360" /></a></div>
It's 2014, an election year, which means it's time for a good ol'
fashioned RiNO hunt. For those unfamiliar with the acronym, RiNO stands
for "Republican in Name Only" and is meant to indicate a GOP sell-out to
moderation or even liberalism -- but in reality, it's come to mean a
heretic in the cult of Tea Party purity. Democrats, liberals, and
various and sundry other commies, behold of the wonder of the RiNO
safari and rejoice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>
<b><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/04/first-on-cnn-conservative-group-pushes-to-topple-gop-leaders-in-congress/">CNN</a>:</b>
A conservative group is launching a new campaign which calls on "the
GOP leadership in both the House and the Senate to step aside."<br />
<br />
ForAmerica told CNN that it's putting six figures behind its "Dump the
Leadership" campaign between now and November's leadership elections.<br />
<br />
The group says that its digital ads will target House Speaker John
Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy,
as well as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John
Cornyn, and the group adds that the first paid spots are now up online.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
ForAmerica has been put together by ultra-conservative one man noise machine Brent Bozell. Brent is... Well, <a href="http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/brent-bozell" target="_blank" title="Right Wing Watch -- tagged 'Brent Bozell'">Brent's an interesting character </a>--
if by "interesting" you mean an unrelenting, fiery ball of seething
hatred, ridiculous lies, and perpetual victimhood. Also interesting (in
the more traditional sense) is Bozell's reason for this RiNO hunt.<br />
<br />
"Time and again, year after year, the Republican leadership in the House
and Senate has come to grassroots conservatives, and Tea Party
supporters pleading for our money, our volunteers, our time, our energy
and our votes," Bozell told CNN. "In return they have repeatedly
promised not just to stop the liberal assault on our freedoms and our
national treasury, but to advance our conservative agenda. It's been
years. There is not a single conservative accomplishment this so-called
'leadership' can point to."<br />
<br />
There's a reason for that failure to advance the agenda -- conservative leadership spends <i>way</i>
too much time listening to extremists like Brent Bozell. The government
shutdown, the debt limit fiasco; these aren't exactly the children of
Republican moderates. The Tea Party's demand for everything they want,
right now, with no compromise whatsoever is a lousy strategy to get
anything done. Replacing the leadership with Tea Party purists is not
going to fix the problem Bozell thinks he sees.<br />
<br />
In fact, the effort itself can only hurt Bozell's cause, as reality demonstrates.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>
<b><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rasmussen-mcconnell-grimes-tied-42-percent" target="_blank" title="Even Rasmussen Finds McConnell Tied With Dem Challenger">Talking Points Memo</a>:</b>
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is tied with his
Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, at 42 percent each in a
new poll by conservative-leaning firm <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2014/kentucky/election_2014_kentucky_senate">Rasmussen Reports</a>.<br />
<br />
Six percent preferred neither of them, and 10 percent were undecided, according to the survey, which was released Monday.<br />
<br />
Rasmussen's polls came under fire during the <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/">2010</a> and <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/">2012</a> election cycles for regularly overstating the standing of Republican candidates.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Rasmussen's poll shows the person Bozell and ForAmerica would prefer -- Matt Bevin -- <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/370219/rasmussen-poll-shows-bevin-outperforming-mcconnell-against-democratic-challenger" target="_blank" title="Rasmussen Poll Shows Bevin Outperforming McConnell Against Democratic Challenger">actually doing better</a>
against Grimes in the general. But the most recent polling shows that
Bevin has no hope at all of winning the Republican primary in Kentucky.
Barring some earthshattering scandal or the incumbent's untimely demise,
<a href="http://www.humanevents.com/2014/01/14/kentucky-mcconnell-leads-bevin-53-to-31/" target="_blank" title="Kentucky poll: McConnell leads Bevin 53% to 31%, leads Coach Calipari 59% to 26%">Mitch McConnell <i>will</i> win the primary</a> and advance to the general. The man has a better than 20-point lead.<br />
<br />
Which means that Brent Bozell and company are going to throw money at a
candidate who's almost certainly going to lose the GOP primary, dirtying
and roughing up the Republican who's just as certain to win. Mitch
McConnell will not come out of this smelling like a rose, to say the
least, and the man who's already the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/272257-poll-mcconnell-ranks-as-nations-least-popular-senator" target="_blank" title="Poll: Kentucky's Mitch McConnell ranks as nation's least popular senator">least popular senator in the US</a>
goes into a race even less popular than before. And that's a race where
poll averages show him slightly behind. SPOILER ALERT: that's not going
to help Republicans keep that seat.<br />
<br />
After the race is over, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
will probably be sending Brent Bozell a box of chocolates and a thank
you card.<br />
<br />
And while McConnell's case is an extreme example, it's still an
important one. Other targeted Republicans probably won't be taken down
so easily and ForAmerica's money will, for the most part, be wasted. But
in a year where the GOP has hopes of retaking the Senate, throwing a
seat away like this could spell disaster. And the fact that it's the
Senate Minority Leader himself would only be a PR coup for Dems.<br />
<br />
It also shows just how counterproductive conservative extremist tantrums
and RiNO hunts can be. No wonder GOP leadership are going to war with
the Tea Party. The 'baggers are true believers -- and true believers
would rather destroy the party than allow it to be run by anyone other
than purists.<br />
<br />
-Wisco<br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/8567869290/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage Skidmore</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-4615596909069964472014-02-03T10:23:00.001-06:002014-02-03T10:23:23.843-06:00GOP Immigration Reform Plan: Kill it, Plant the Knife on the President<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eQsjwOrmr-Y/Uu--l5WQVlI/AAAAAAAAJBY/aE0b-iB2fJI/s1600/Paul_Ryan_with_Barack_Obama_02-25-10.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Paul Ryan hands papers to Pres. Obama" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eQsjwOrmr-Y/Uu--l5WQVlI/AAAAAAAAJBY/aE0b-iB2fJI/s1600/Paul_Ryan_with_Barack_Obama_02-25-10.jpg" height="239" title="Paul Ryan hands papers to Pres. Obama" width="360" /></a></div>It's definitely not the outcome anyone expected -- although maybe we <br />
should've. House Republican leadership had put forward two principles <br />
for immigration reform, one of which was that "<a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/197023-house-republican-leaders-back-legal-status-for-illegal-immigrants" target="_blank" title="House Republican leaders back legal status in immigration push">specific enforcement triggers</a>"<br />
had to be met in order for House Republicans to advance a bill. <br />
"Specific" was exactly the wrong word here, since this was a <br />
fill-in-the-blank provision to be decided on later. This was the flag <br />
that everyone was watching. The common wisdom was that if they were able<br />
to wrangle the base on board, the triggers would be half-way reasonable<br />
-- or at least do-able. Undocumented people would have to learn English<br />
-- assuming they didn't already know it -- or complete high school or <br />
an equivalent. If they didn't, then the trigger would be completely <br />
unreasonable, like an impenetrable fence at the southern border or <br />
something crazy, like mandatory prison sentences. If the push to pass <br />
the bill failed, the signal was expected to be a poison pill -- a <br />
requirement that was either so noxious that Democrats would reject it <br />
out of hand or so technically impossible that it could never be met.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
That's what everyone <i>expected</i> to happen. If the House killed immigration reform, that was the way it was supposed to die. No one foresaw this ignoble end:<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<b><a href="http://republicans%20blame%20obama%20for%20stalling%20immigration/" target="_blank" title="Republicans blame Obama for stalling immigration">Associated Press</a>:</b><br />
Republicans are starting to lay the blame on President Barack Obama if <br />
an overhaul of the nation's broken immigration system fails to become <br />
law.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The GOP's emerging plan on immigration is to criticize Obama as an <br />
untrustworthy leader and his administration as an unreliable enforcer of<br />
any laws that might be passed. Perhaps realizing the odds of finding a <br />
consensus on immigration are long, the Republicans have started telling <br />
voters that if the GOP-led House doesn't take action this election year,<br />
it is Obama's fault.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
"If the president had been serious about this the last five years, we'd be further along in this discussion," Louisiana <span data-scayt_word="Gov" data-scaytid="16">Gov</span>. Bobby <span data-scayt_word="Jindal" data-scaytid="17">Jindal</span>, a Republican, said Sunday.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And in case you don't get the message, Rep. Paul Ryan -- who'd taken the<br />
lead on the bill -- said pretty much the same thing; "Here's the issue <br />
that all Republicans agree on: We don't trust the president to enforce <br />
the law."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
No one expected this turn of events -- mostly because it's stupid.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
What the GOP is trying to do here is blame a move the President made <br />
back in 2012 for immigration reform's death today. In '12, Obama <br />
announced that he would stop deporting the children of undocumented <br />
people, basically <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/15/1100274/-Obama-administration-to-give-legal-status-to-young-law-abiding-immigrants-who-came-to-U-S-as-kids" target="_blank" title="Obama administration to give legal status to young, law-abiding immigrants who came to U.S. as kids">moving forward with as much of the DREAM Act as executive power would allow</a>. It was a case of the president doing what he could, because the Republican-obstructed congress would do nothing.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And of course, it ties into their current (<a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/80393/obama-has-issued-fewer-executive-orders-than-5-republican-presidents-before-him" target="_blank" title="Obama Has Issued Fewer Executive Orders Than 5 Republican Presidents Before Him">and baseless</a>)<br />
freak out over Obama's announcement of the use of executive privileges <br />
to advance his agenda as laid out in the 2014 State of the Union.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So the story is this: Republicans don't want to pass immigration reform,<br />
because they don't trust the president to enforce a something <i>that he would sign into law himself and that he himself had called for. </i>This<br />
is an astonishingly dumb argument and an extremely hard one to buy. <br />
They'd have been better off going with the "specific triggers" dodge and<br />
demanding an inescapable dome be built over Mexico and China.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But what this messaging signals is that the base will accept nothing. <br />
Keep in mind, the "specific triggers" excuse would not only have to fool<br />
Latino voters, but also the GOP base. It would have to be some proposal<br />
that was at least close to acceptable to both groups and it turns out <br />
that this is impossible. The <a href="http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-immigration-will-gop-cave-to-racists.html" target="_blank" title="On Immigration, Will the GOP Cave to Racists?">racist base</a><br />
will accept nothing short of increased enforcement and, if at all <br />
possible, an effort to mass-deport every undocumented person in the <br />
entire US. There is no compromise position here -- the base is so <br />
extreme that not even the pretense of compromise is good enough, because<br />
no compromise would be plausibly acceptable.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Which is why we get the unbelievably stupid "reform is dead because of <br />
Obama" excuse. No one expected it, but maybe everyone should've.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Ryan_with_Barack_Obama_02-25-10.jpg" target="_blank"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="124">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>] </div>Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-63967226621892335612014-01-31T09:45:00.001-06:002014-01-31T10:11:20.508-06:00On Immigration, Will the GOP Cave to Racists?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DcQsp8uniok/UuvCMK7n4MI/AAAAAAAAJBI/qjRTKIf56tk/s1600/sealtheborder.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Anti-immigration protesters" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DcQsp8uniok/UuvCMK7n4MI/AAAAAAAAJBI/qjRTKIf56tk/s1600/sealtheborder.jpg" height="230" title="Anti-immigration protesters" width="360" /></a></div>
In a piece for The Daily Beast, Patricia Murphy writes that a <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/coming-gop-immigration-war-104500991--politics.html" target="_blank" title="The Coming GOP Immigration War">new front is about to open up in the GOP Civil War</a>. At this very moment, House Republicans are locked away at a "retreat," where they're trying to knock together some sort of immigration reform bill. So far, John Boehner has put forth two principles -- one vague and one specific -- that would be required to get House leadership's support. The first is the vague one: that any law would go into effect only after so far undefined "specific enforcement triggers have been implemented." The second is that there be no pathway to citizenship.<br />
<br />
Actually, it would be more accurate to say that there would be no <i>automatic</i> pathway to citizenship -- people covered by the reforms would have nothing standing in the way of citizenship, other than the fact that they'd have to officially declare that desire. This is pretty much a fig leaf for the GOP, whose messaging had until recently argued that a pathway to citizenship was "amnesty" and the <i>worst thing ever!</i> By saying there's "no pathway to citizenship," House leaders hope to avoid charges of "caving" to Democrats on the issue. But it would be much more accurate to say there would no longer be any glide path to citizenship, since the path is cleared of any obstacles, should you wish to follow it. You've just got to land the thing yourself.<br />
<br />
Whether that fig leaf is enough to get enough Republicans on board is still an open question. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/29/how-to-understand-the-gop-predicament-on-immigration/" target="_blank" title="How to understand the GOP predicament on immigration">Greg <span data-scayt_word="Sargent" data-scaytid="63">Sargent</span> has argued</a> that we'll know when they define the "specific enforcement triggers." If the triggers are unreasonable and unattainable, like a giant wall closing off a ridiculous percentage of the southern border or 100% use of and compliance with e-Verify, then that means Republicans have failed to agree among themselves and they're trying to blame the failure of reform on Democrats.
<br />
<br />
But what would really be responsible for that failure? In a remarkable moment of candor, some Republicans say racism would be to blame.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b><a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/some-republicans-see-racism-as-a-factor-in-immigration-stale" target="_blank" title="Some Republicans See Racism As a Factor in Immigration Stalemate"><span data-scayt_word="Buzzfeed" data-scaytid="135">Buzzfeed</span></a>:</b> “Part of it, I think — and I hate to say this, because these are my people — but I hate to say it, but it’s racial,” said the Southern Republican lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If you go to town halls people say things like, ‘These people have different cultural customs than we do.’ And that’s code for race.”<br />
<br />
There are a range of policy reasons for opposing plans to liberalize immigration or to regularize undocumented immigrants in the country, ones revolving around law-and-order concerns and the labor market. But that perceived thread of xenophobia, occasionally expressed bluntly on the fringes of the Republican Party and on the talk radio airwaves, has driven many Hispanic voters away from a Republican leadership that courts them avidly. And some Republicans who back an immigration overhaul, including Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and one of the Republican Party’s most vocal champions of a pathway to citizenship, acknowledge that race remains a reality in the immigration debate.<br />
<br />
“There will always be people [who have] different reasons for opposing the change. We have a history in this country of demagoguery when it comes [to immigration]. You know, ‘Irish Need Not Apply.’ There’s nothing new going on today that’s gone on before. This isn’t the first time that there’s been some ugliness around the issue of immigration,” Graham said.</blockquote>
It's the <span data-scayt_word="nativist" data-scaytid="142">nativist</span> base that cheered on <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/racist-roots-arizonas-immigration-law" target="_blank" title="Racist roots of Arizona's immigration law">Arizona's racist anti-immigration law</a> -- one that requires anyone who police suspect might be undocumented to produce the proper papers on demand, like a "papers please" scene from <i>Hogan's Heroes</i>. It's the same base that had John McCain star in a presidential campaign commercial with a <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/sheriff-in-mccains-build-the-dang-fence-accused-of-threatening-ex-boyfriend-with-deportation/politics/2012/02/18/35000" target="_blank" title="Sheriff In McCain's 'Build The Dang Fence' Accused Of Threatening Ex-Boyfriend With Deportation">somewhat problematic</a> Arizona sheriff. And it's that same base that <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/christie-win-deflates-rubios-2016-dream" target="_blank" title="Whatever happened to Marco Rubio?">dragged Sen. Marco Rubio from 2016 <span data-scayt_word="frontrunner" data-scaytid="229">frontrunner</span> to conservative has-been</a> after he took the lead on an earlier reform effort.<br />
<br />
In all but the last example, the base was encouraged by the party -- or, at least, by the party mouthpieces in <span data-scayt_word="rightwing" data-scaytid="269">rightwing</span> media. No one spoke out when the base made Joe <span data-scayt_word="Arpaio" data-scaytid="279">Arpaio</span> -- who should've been nothing more than a racist, <span data-scayt_word="birther" data-scaytid="292">birther</span> embarrassment -- a party hero. No one spoke out on any of this stuff. And now party leadership expects them to turn on a dime, because it's politically expedient.<br />
<br />
Maybe Boehner's more of a leader than I suspected. Maybe he can twist enough arms and promise enough campaign financing to actually get a working version of this out of the House. At this point, there is some reason for optimism.<br />
<br />
But the base will not follow. At this point, they've been trained to respond to anything less than driving all undocumented people out of the country with pitchforks as a form of "amnesty." If Republicans agree to any substantive reforms, the base -- driven by what even many Republicans admit is bigotry -- will be extremely displeased at best. And in revolt, at worst.<br />
<br />
We could see a Second Wave of Tea Party sentiment after this, an angry denouncement of the "<span data-scayt_word="RiNOs" data-scaytid="380">RiNOs</span>" who let the liberals pull one over on them. A rabid, raw, nakedly racist backlash against GOP leadership and party establishment.<br />
<br />
But it has to happen sometime. The party has to shed the racists to make some progress. It may hurt them in the short term, but there is no other moral choice. The only alternative is to go back to pandering to bigots -- a position the party has taken far too often on far too many issues.<br />
<br />
It has to stop some time. Now would be as good a time as any.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="416">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschinkel/626976995/"><i>photo by Mike <span data-scayt_word="Schinkel" data-scaytid="430">Schinkel</span></i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-66844394150823158432014-01-30T10:12:00.001-06:002014-01-30T10:12:24.013-06:00Rand Paul's Answer to Poverty: Wage More War on Women<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQXWYiD9IzU/Uup1O7obhNI/AAAAAAAAJAo/AOvTuoBU1FE/s1600/poodlehair.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Rand Paul" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KQXWYiD9IzU/Uup1O7obhNI/AAAAAAAAJAo/AOvTuoBU1FE/s1600/poodlehair.jpg" height="239" title="Rand Paul" width="360" /></a></div>I've never been extremely impressed with Kentucky's freshman Senator <br />
Rand Paul. He seems keenly proud of his own brilliance -- despite the <br />
fact that few people other than himself can manage to find any evidence <br />
of it. His desire to be a Senator seems to stem more from his need to be<br />
a Very Important Person than his desire to serve his country. And you <br />
don't take <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/multiple-gop-responses-to-state-of-the-union-are-they-a-sign-of-party-division/2014/01/28/0d1c68c0-883b-11e3-916e-e01534b1e132_story.html" target="_blank" title="Flurry of GOP responses to State of the Union address reflects party’s ideological rivalries">it upon yourself to respond to the President's State of the Union Address</a><br />
-- in no official capacity whatsoever -- unless you think people need <br />
to appreciate the beneficent fruits of your towering intellect.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In short, Rand Paul is an incredible egotist, made even more insufferable by the fact that he's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html" target="_blank" title="Senator Rand Paul Faces New Charges of Plagiarism">not actually all that smart</a>. <br />
He's five gallons of smart in a 50 gallon drum -- and the rest of the <br />
barrel is filled up by bullcrap. That's my impression. And it's an <br />
impression he recently did very little to <span data-scayt_word="dispell" data-scaytid="1">dispell</span>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/29/3220881/rand-paul-welfare-cap-children/" target="_blank" title="Senator Floats Idea To Penalize Low-Income Women Who Have Children"><span data-scayt_word="ThinkProgress" data-scaytid="2">ThinkProgress</span></a>:</b> At a luncheon for the Chamber of Commerce in Lexington, KY, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) floated the idea of <a href="http://www.kentucky.com/2014/01/24/3050274/rand-paul-discusses-cutting-government.html">capping government benefits for women</a> who have children out of wedlock, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
While he said that preventing unplanned pregnancies should be in the <br />
hands of communities and families, he added, “Maybe we have to say <br />
‘enough’s enough, you shouldn’t be having kids after a certain amount.”‘<br />
He went on to say, “I don’t know how you do all that because then it’s <br />
tough to tell a woman with four kids that she’s got a fifth kid we’re <br />
not going to give her any more money. But we have to figure out how to <br />
get that message through because that is part of the answer.”<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The idea of withholding benefits from women who have more than a certain<br />
number of children is actually current policy in many states. While <br />
most programs through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (<span data-scayt_word="TANF" data-scaytid="4">TANF</span>, or welfare) give families more money if they have more children, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/08/06/2420101/california-considers-ending-rule-that-penalizes-low-income-women-for-having-kids/">16 states cap the assistance</a> and don’t give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Want to take a guess at how good this policy is at eliminating poverty? <span data-scayt_word="ThinkProgress" data-scaytid="21">ThinkProgress</span><br />
goes on to report that it doesn't make a dent in poverty at all, <br />
because duh. In fact, many of the states that had implemented such a cap<br />
are in the process of undoing it.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But worse than Paul's ignorance of the consequence of his proposal is <br />
his complete unawareness that Republican policies could possibly be <br />
contributing to any of this. Your party reduces the number of abortion <br />
clinics by regulating them out of business and fights to keep women from<br />
getting contraceptive coverage in their health insurance -- both of <br />
which affect women in poverty to a far greater degree than anyone else <br />
-- and then you complain that poor women have too many children?<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Seriously, how stupid do you actually have to be? And Tea Party darling Rand Paul can <span data-scayt_word="STFU" data-scaytid="114">STFU</span><br />
about "individual liberty" now, because you know who else thinks having<br />
the government limit the size of families is a good idea? <a href="http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/28/22080954-china-officially-eases-controversial-one-child-policy?lite" target="_blank" title="China officially eases controversial one-child policy">China</a>.<br />
For someone who claims to be on the side of freedom, Rand Paul -- like <br />
pretty much ever Republican official out there -- sure spends a lot of <br />
time thinking up new ways to <span data-scayt_word="micromanage" data-scaytid="189">micromanage</span> women's lives. The word these guys are looking for here isn't "liberty," it's "totalitarianism."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The whole thing is idiotic beyond words and Sen. <span data-scayt_word="Poodlehair" data-scaytid="10">Poodlehair</span><br />
here seems to be convinced that it's the most common sense thing in the<br />
world. Why? Because he's a Republican, that's why. For Republicans, the<br />
solution to every problem is to find the right person to punish, then <br />
you punish them hard and punish them long -- unless they're wealthy. <br />
That's why they don't believe in global warming; they can't figure out <br />
how beating poor people, women, and minorities with ax handles would <br />
solve the problem. So it must not exist.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
For them, it's create a problem, then complain about the people the problem affects. That's how geniuses like Rand Paul operate.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
You really wish those geniuses were rare. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="146">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/11901719855/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage <span data-scayt_word="Skidmore" data-scaytid="150">Skidmore</span></i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-39076882145762808452014-01-29T09:53:00.001-06:002014-01-29T09:53:02.340-06:00Economics, the State of the Union, and the Ever-Dimming Appeal of the GOP<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_11GlAPXYM0/UukgTi9rhwI/AAAAAAAAJAI/bBpjORoY4Zs/s1600/nolongerrepublican.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Protester holds sign reading, 'NO LONGER REPUBLICAN'" border="0" height="360" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_11GlAPXYM0/UukgTi9rhwI/AAAAAAAAJAI/bBpjORoY4Zs/s1600/nolongerrepublican.jpg" title="Protester holds sign reading, 'NO LONGER REPUBLICAN'" width="356" /></a></div>As State of the Union speeches go, President Obama's 2014 appearance <br />
before the joint chambers of congress went well. Of the people who <br />
watched the speech, 53% had a "very positive reaction to his speech." <br />
Conservatives will no doubt point out that the sample is skewed left, <br />
but the poll can hardly be blamed for not including people who refused <br />
to watch the speech. The audience was largely Democrat and indie, so the<br />
sample is largely Democrat and indie.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Still, there's some nasty news for Republicans here. The <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/12/cnn-poll-53-who-watched-speech-give-president-thumbs-up/?hpt=po_c2" target="_blank" title="CNN Poll: 53% who watched speech give president thumbs up">CNN flash poll's</a><br />
respondents were "44% Democratic and 17% Republican." Yet, when asked <br />
if "the president's policies will move the country in the right <br />
direction," 71% said they would -- a number <i>way</i> too high to be <br />
explained by Democratic boosterism. That number has to include a lot of <br />
indies and even some Republicans. CNN reports that the number of dems in<br />
the sample is "about 12 points more Democratic than the population as a<br />
whole," so 71-12=59. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
But let's not get all teabagger about things and start "unskewing" polls<br />
to advantage Republicans. Let's look at numbers that need no <br />
adjustment.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
A <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/23/most-see-inequality-growing-but-partisans-differ-over-solutions/" target="_blank" title="Most See Inequality Growing, but Partisans Differ over Solutions">Pew Research/<i>USA Today</i> poll</a><br />
released a few days ago polled several of the central themes of the <br />
State of the Union. From income inequality to reducing poverty to <br />
increasing the minimum wage to extending jobless benefits. The public is<br />
with the president and Democrats. And on the question of how to deal <br />
with most of these issues, Republicans are pretty far outside the <br />
mainstream.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
On only one issue do Republican voters agree with the majority of <br />
Americans -- that the minimum wage should be raised to $10.10 an hour. <br />
And it's hardly a landslide; 53% think Americans should get at least a <br />
living wage. But it shows that even the party's voters are at odds with <br />
the party's elected officials.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But part of the problem is that Republicans don't seem to understand the<br />
issues surrounding poverty. 57% of Republicans say that people get rich<br />
by working harder than everyone else -- a silly argument that would <br />
make the guy who works on a loading dock a billionaire and the guy who <br />
sits at a desk trading money a pauper. Not surprisingly, this view is <br />
not shared by the majority. Only 35% agree with this explanation of <br />
wealth creation. People are far more likely to explain wealth as a <br />
matter of luck and privilege. 63% of Democrats and 52% of Independents <br />
believe that someone become wealthy "because he or she has had more <br />
advantages."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Only 36% say the economic system is "fair to most Americans," 60% say <br />
the economy is rigged to favor the wealthy, and 60% say most people are <br />
willing to work hard to get ahead. 54% would like to see taxes raised on<br />
the rich to expand programs to fight poverty, only 44% believe that <br />
government aid results in dependency, and a measly 35% believe that <br />
"lowering taxes on the wealthy to encourage more investment and economic<br />
growth" -- i.e., the GOP's core economic message or <br />
"trickle-down/supply side economics" -- would help to reduce poverty.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The President walked in to that congressional chamber last night with a <br />
deck of winning cards. No wonder his speech was well-received outside <br />
Republican circles.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And no wonder those Republican circles keep shrinking.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-Wisco<br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/bigbabyhead/5481027008/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Matt Baran</i></a>] Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-16067041725191740332014-01-28T09:39:00.001-06:002014-01-28T09:39:30.654-06:00Motionless, Broken GOP Complains About Being Left Behind<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gv6xX840WK0/UufKhOWIntI/AAAAAAAAI_c/oS43Cbcytw8/s1600/whatusgovern.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Photoshop image of GOP behind sign asking, '#WhatUsGovern'?" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Gv6xX840WK0/UufKhOWIntI/AAAAAAAAI_c/oS43Cbcytw8/s1600/whatusgovern.jpg" height="203" title="Photoshop image of GOP behind sign asking, '#WhatUsGovern'?" width="360" /></a></div>Tonight's the President's State of the Union address and the big news on the right is that the president <a href="http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/obama-on-executive-actions-ive-got-a-pen-and-ive-got-a-phone/" target="_blank" title="Obama On Executive Actions: 'I've Got A Pen And I've Got A Phone'">plans to use the lawful power of the presidency</a> to get some stuff done. Needless to say, conservatives think this is the <i><a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/27/krauthammer_on_obamas_threat_to_use_executive_power_this_is_all_empty_rhetoric.html" target="_blank" title="Krauthammer On Obama's Threat To Use Executive Power: 'This Is All Empty Rhetoric'">worst</a> <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/20/ive-got-pen-obama-raises-hackles-with-executive-action-push/" target="_blank" title="'I've got a pen': Obama raises hackles with executive actions">thing</a> <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/01/26/347869/us-senator-obama-arrogant-abusing-power/" target="_blank" title="Rand Paul: Obama's executive actions are an arrogant overreach">ever</a>!</i> For the rest of America, however, this is seen as a good idea. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/01/27/morning-plum-inside-obamas-game-plan-for-2014/" target="_blank" title="Inside Obama’s game plan for 2014">Greg Sargent</a> points to a <i>Washington Post</i>/ABC News poll that includes <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/01/26/National-Politics/Polling/question_13006.xml?uuid=Rv4tgIZHEeOv-BkfjReDJQ" target="_blank" title="Poll Question">this relevant response</a>:<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i>Presidents have the power in some cases to bypass Congress and take <br />
action by executive order to accomplish their administration’s goals. Is<br />
this approach something you…<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Support: 52</i><br /><br />
<i><br /><br />
Oppose: 46</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
"In other words, despite the inevitable screams about Obama 'tyranny,' <br />
this approach will politically be at worst a wash (independents are <br />
split on it 49-49) and at best a net positive (in addition to majority <br />
support for it, moderates favor it by 56-43," Sargent reports, "only <br />
Republicans and conservatives oppose it in large numbers)."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And you don't have to look far for other data to explain that result. To return to a <a href="http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2014/01/pew-poll-finds-voters-assesments-of-two.html" target="_blank" title="Pew poll finds voters' assessments of the two US political parties surprisingly accurate">Pew poll</a><br />
I wrote about yesterday, a majority of Americans see the Republican <br />
Party for what it is: extremist, hyper-partisan, enthralled to <br />
lobbyists, unethical, dishonest, and not concerned with "the needs of <br />
people like me." If that's the way Americans see Republicans, why on <br />
Earth would they want GOP input on anything? The more you could get done<br />
<i>without</i> people like that, the better off everyone would be.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And if you think congress has been dysfunctional before, imagine what it<br />
will be like with a fractured GOP that can't even agree amongst <br />
themselves -- which seems to be the direction that the GOP Civil War is <br />
dragging everything.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><b><a href="http://www.mediaite.com/online/there-are-now-three-separate-republican-state-of-the-union-rebuttals/" target="_blank" title="There Are Now Three Separate Republican State of the Union Rebuttals">Mediaite</a>:</b><br />
Whenever presidents give State of the Union addresses, the opposition <br />
party chooses one person to deliver the official response. In recent <br />
years, an additional tea party response was added. This year, there will<br />
be three––count ‘em, THREE––separate State of the Union rebuttals from <br />
three different Republicans. The official Republican party response <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/state-of-the-union-2014/cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-to-deliver-republican-state-of-the-union-rebuttal-20140123" target="_blank">will be delivered by</a> Washington Congresswoman <b>Cathy McMorris Rodgers</b>, giving her a brief moment in the spotlight to make a name for herself nationally.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
However, last week the group Tea Party Express announced that Senator <b>Mike Lee</b>, who played a major part in <b>Ted Cruz</b>‘s big 21-hour Obamacare filibuster, would be delivering <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/21/sen-mike-lee-give-tea-party-response-obamas-sotu/" target="_blank">the official tea party response</a> to the State of the Union. Previous tea party post-SOTU speakers have been <b>Michele Bachmann</b>, <b>Herman Cain</b>, and <b>Rand Paul</b>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And speaking of Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator will be… yep, you guessed it!… <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/rand-paul-post-state-of-the-union-speech-102534.html" target="_blank">delivering his <i>own</i> rebuttal</a> to the State of the Union. Paul’s speech appears not to be in connection with any group, just something he decided to do.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Wow. What a show of party unity, huh? Three separate responses are a <br />
pretty good sign that none of these people are on the same page and that<br />
none of these groups trust the others to speak to their concerns. A <br />
party being pulled in three separate directions isn't a party that's <br />
going to be able to function very well. This explains why all the <br />
"accomplishments" of the GOP have been the negative consequences of <br />
doing nothing -- i..e., the government shutdown, the debt limit fiasco, <br />
the sequester kicking in, etc. When you want people to fight over how <br />
and when to pull the brake lever on a runaway train -- and in the <br />
process, fail to throw the lever at all -- you go ahead and call the <br />
GOP. It's what they're good at. It's hard to imagine why you'd want <br />
someone to do that, though.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And so the American people don't. They want the President to use his <br />
executive authority as an end run around a broken and nonfunctional <br />
Republican Party. You can't count on the GOP to get things done, so we <br />
don't. If we rely on Republican cooperation -- with the president, with <br />
Democrats, and even with themselves -- we'll never see anything <br />
accomplished. If we want government to work, we'll have to do our best <br />
to get it to work without them.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Luckily, there's a way to do that.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-Wisco<br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/10025801993/" target="_blank"><i>image by DonkeyHotey</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-34606380171607850842014-01-27T09:34:00.001-06:002014-01-27T09:34:41.012-06:00How Not to Deny You're Waging a War on Women<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F1_Fbf-6j_c/UuZ5i0eUfRI/AAAAAAAAI-8/EBdQd-qlhlA/s1600/Rand_Paul.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-F1_Fbf-6j_c/UuZ5i0eUfRI/AAAAAAAAI-8/EBdQd-qlhlA/s1600/Rand_Paul.jpg" height="239" width="360" /></a></div>You may need a refresher on Virginia state Sen. Dick Black, a far-right <br />
Republican who just doesn't get how marital rape can be a thing. If so, <br />
here's <i>Mother Jones'</i> Molly Redden's <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/gop-congressional-candidate-richard-dick-black-spousal-rape-not-a-crime" target="_blank" title="GOP Congressional Candidate: Spousal Rape Shouldn't Be a Crime">reporting on the subject</a> from January 15.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i>After taking a drubbing in last year's state elections, Virginia <br />
Republicans are debating whether their party has come to be defined by <br />
its extremists. But in a congressional district in Northern Virginia, <br />
one of the state's main instigators of culture warfare, state Sen. <br />
Richard H. "Dick" Black, is running in the Republican primary to replace<br />
longtime GOP moderate Rep. Frank Wolf, who is retiring. And he's <br />
guaranteed to ignite wedge-issue passion. Exhibit A: As a state <br />
legislator, Black opposed making spousal rape a crime, <a href="http://www.care2.com/causes/you-cant-prosecute-spousal-rape-those-women-wear-nighties-video.html">citing</a><br />
the impossibility of convicting a husband accused of raping his wife <br />
"when they're living together, sleeping in the same bed, she's in a <br />
nightie, and so forth."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Black has referred to emergency contraception, which does not cause abortions, as <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/feb/1/20010201-020939-2801r/?page=all" target="_blank">"baby pesticide."</a><br />
Black also fought to block a statue of Abraham Lincoln at a former <br />
Confederate site in Richmond. He wasn't sure, he explained at the time, <br />
that statues of Lincoln belonged in Virginia. He has argued that <br />
abortion is a worse evil than slavery. And once, to demonstrate why <br />
libraries should block pornography on their computers, Black invited a <br />
TV reporter to film him using a library terminal to <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-599790.html" target="_blank">watch violent rape porn</a>.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Last week, we got the not-unwelcome news that Black was <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/23/3198411/congressional-candidate-justified-marital-rape-dropped/" target="_blank" title="Congressional Candidate Who Justified Marital Rape Has Dropped Out">dropping out of that race</a>.<br />
Black said he was staying in the state Senate to "maintain our 20/20 <br />
split," but there's good reason to believe that he was pushed out. Black<br />
is exactly the kind of candidate establishment Republicans <i>don't</i> want running in November -- the kind who uses hard-ass <span data-scayt_word="conservativism" data-scaytid="4">conservativism</span><br />
to be a jerk and troll everyone who isn't a true believer. Maybe he <br />
could've won the district or maybe he couldn't have. But he would've <br />
been guaranteed to engage in jackass antics that would make national <br />
waves and make the party look bad as a whole. And, <a href="http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2014/01/republicans-try-to-tamp-down-latest.html" target="_blank" title="Republicans try to tamp down latest unhinged candidate outbreak">as I pointed out last week</a>, Black's not the only candidate that Republicans have who's making trouble for the GOP as a whole.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But a bigger problem for the party might just come from non-candidates who they can't force out of the spotlight; <span data-scayt_word="Brainiacs" data-scaytid="9">Brainiacs</span><br />
who think they've mastered the art of spin and think that they can fix <br />
the party's problems freelance. You know, masterminds like Mike <span data-scayt_word="Huckabee" data-scaytid="10">Huckabee</span>, whose attempt to spin away the the GOP's "War on Women" label <a href="http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/mike-huckabees-war-for-women/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0" target="_blank" title="Mike Huckabee's War for Women">only managed to confirm it</a>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And then there's serial headline-grabber/foot-in-mouth inserter Rand Paul, who decided -- like <span data-scayt_word="Huckabee" data-scaytid="12">Huckabee</span> -- that it's <i>Democrats</i> who are waging a war on women because Bill and Hillary:<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<b><a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2014/01/26/paul_says_hillary_clinton_should_be_judged_on_lewinsky.html" target="_blank" title="Paul Says Hillary Clinton Should Be Judged on Lewinsky">Political Wire</a>: </b>Said<br />
Paul: "One of the workplace laws and rules that I think are good is <br />
that bosses shouldn't prey on young interns in their office. And I think<br />
really the media seems to have given President Clinton a pass on this. <br />
He took advantage of a girl that was 20 years old and an intern in his <br />
office. There is no excuse for that, and it is predatory behavior."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
He noted that "sometimes it's hard to separate" Bill and Hillary Clinton<br />
and then added, "And then they have the gall to stand up and say <br />
Republicans are having a war on women? So yes, I think it's a factor. <br />
It's not Hillary's fault, but it is a factor in judging Bill Clinton and<br />
history."</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The best response I've come across to this insane false equivalence comes from <span data-scayt_word="DPM" data-scaytid="16">DPM</span> at Balloon Juice; "Clearly, one instance of sexual harassment almost twenty years ago requires, as I’m sure any serious <span data-scayt_word="Burkean" data-scaytid="18">Burkean</span><br />
would agree, that women pay for their own contraception for the rest of<br />
recorded time without further comment." And of course, there's the <br />
invasive and unnecessary ultrasound laws and the voter suppression and <br />
the candidates like Black who think it's impossible to rape your wife <br />
and your talk show hosts who think women who use birth control are sluts<br />
and you get the idea.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And of course, since the most recent example of a <span data-scayt_word="dem" data-scaytid="30">dem</span> War on Women that Sen. <span data-scayt_word="Poodlehair" data-scaytid="1">Poodlehair</span><br />
could come up with was two decades ago, you kind of get the idea that <br />
evidence of said WoW is laughably slim. And one guy engaging in office <br />
shenanigans with one intern is not at all the same as an entire <br />
political party wanting to invade women's bodies with ultrasound wands <br />
to punish them for daring to exercise their right to an abortion. That <br />
it's the same as chasing them away from the polls. That it's equal to <br />
not allowing health insurance to cover contraception, because forcing <br />
employees to abide by their employers' religious beliefs is somehow some<br />
<span data-scayt_word="bass-ackard" data-scaytid="316">bass-ackard</span> kind of "religious freedom."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
That's the worst part of all this; that <span data-scayt_word="Huckabee" data-scaytid="339">Huckabee</span><br />
or Paul don't get -- or pretend not to get -- what's wrong with all of <br />
this. That they don't get why women might not be all that pleased with <br />
middle aged Republican men <span data-scayt_word="micromanaging" data-scaytid="370">micromanaging</span> their lives. That they think that women are dumb enough to fall for these idiotic arguments.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In trying to deny there's a Republican War on Women, these people are waging one. They're doing it badly. And it hurts.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Republicans may be able to scare off candidates like Dick Black with <br />
backroom talks about funding and donors, but the guys like Rand Paul and<br />
Mike <span data-scayt_word="Huckabee" data-scaytid="406">Huckabee</span>,<br />
who aren't running for anything at the moment, they're going to be a <br />
trickier problem. They think they're smart enough to straighten this <br />
whole War on Women thing out on their own -- and they're <i>so</i> not.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="441">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rand_Paul_%285584558924%29.jpg" target="_blank"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="442">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-13666245497053730602014-01-23T10:31:00.001-06:002014-01-23T10:31:10.624-06:00Freedom vs. the Cult of the GOP<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4EPTWdYPCI/UuE_0fcrXYI/AAAAAAAAI-c/SQHQXtdvXCQ/s1600/votinghumanright.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Protester with sign declaring voting a human right" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-t4EPTWdYPCI/UuE_0fcrXYI/AAAAAAAAI-c/SQHQXtdvXCQ/s1600/votinghumanright.jpg" height="317" title="Protester with sign declaring voting a human right" width="360" /></a></div>Let's face it, there are really two reasons why Republicans want to put <br />
up significant obstacles to voting, The first is the obvious one that <br />
everyone knows: faced with an ever-shrinking demographic base, <br />
Republicans want to even the playing field by keeping Democratic voters <br />
away from the polls. If you ever doubted that one, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/06/512245/texas-voter-id-law-which-accepts-gun-licenses-but-not-student-ids-challenged-in-court/" target="_blank" title="Texas Voter ID Law, Which Accepts Gun Licenses But Not Student IDs, Challenged In Court">then consider Texas' onerous voter ID law</a>, which recognizes gun licenses as valid voter identification, but not a college ID card.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The second is similar, but more <span data-scayt_word="cultish" data-scaytid="4">cultish</span>.<br />
It's the Tea Party's rationalization for voter suppression. Like the <br />
first, this reasoning has it that too many Democrats vote, but this one <br />
tries to argue that making it harder to vote is a good thing, since then<br />
only the people who really <i>want </i>to vote will make it to the ballot box. These people worry about the "low information voter" (<span data-scayt_word="LIV" data-scaytid="136">LIV</span>), who -- if they only took the time to listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean <span data-scayt_word="Hannity" data-scaytid="70">Hannity</span><br />
on the Blessed Electronic Gospel Box -- would understand all and see <br />
the Starry Wisdom of the Tea Party Way. It's ironic, since the people <br />
who think this way are actually the <span data-scayt_word="LIVs" data-scaytid="122">LIVs</span> they worry about. They're <a href="http://griperblade.blogspot.com/2007/08/romanian-roulette.html" target="_blank" title="Romanian Roulette">factually</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html" target="_blank" title="More Guns = More Killing">wrong about</a> <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus" target="_blank" title="Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree">pretty much</a> <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/charts-economic-myths-jobs-deficit-taxes" target="_blank" title="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/charts-economic-myths-jobs-deficit-taxes">everything</a>, but reject any disagreement as heresy and <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/" target="_blank" title="Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill">even as some sort of mental defect</a>.<br />
In any case, the result of this cult-thinking is the same as that of <br />
the more reality-based suppressors' thinking -- weeding out Democratic <br />
voters. Only the reasoning behind the suppression effort is different.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But whichever the reasoning, the cause of the panic is the same: the reliably Republican voter is disappearing into the mist. <br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i><br />
<b><a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/01/22/the_real_problem_with_the_american_right_aging_white_radicals/" target="_blank" title="The real problem with the American right: Aging, white radicals">Brian <span data-scayt_word="Buetler" data-scaytid="430">Buetler</span>, Salon</a>:</b><br />
When it became clear about a year ago that Republican leaders would <br />
have a much harder time advancing immigration reform than they realized —<br />
that GOP activists and conservatives were <i>livid</i> about the idea <br />
that Republicans were going to help illegal immigrants gain citizenship —<br />
it started to look like the party had an insoluble problem on its <br />
hands. Watching Republicans attempt to broaden their appeal to growing, <br />
traditionally Democratic constituencies has been like watching someone <br />
try to cover a bedroom floor with a poorly cut carpet, fastening it into<br />
one corner but pulling it out of the others in the process.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
They can’t connect with traditionally Democratic constituencies without <br />
breaking connection with their reliable supporters. They can tug in <br />
every possible direction, but at some point they need to acknowledge <br />
that the carpet’s too small.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And here's where the Tea Party's reasoning for voter suppression <br />
actually approaches sense -- eve if it doesn't actually get anywhere <br />
near there.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The problem with the GOP is that they've been at the same messaging for <br />
so long that the people who began telling it have been replaced by the <br />
people who fell for it. In other words, Republicans are all people <br />
who've bought into Republican BS -- it's now a party that's fallen for <br />
it's own propaganda. They don't want to change to appeal to a broader <br />
base of voters -- and why would they? They believe they're 100% correct.<br />
If you change your argument to appeal to more voters, then you're <br />
moving away from a position of absolute truth. Compromise is the <br />
rejection of truth for the convenience of half-truths or even lies. This<br />
is why true believers reject moderation -- and why people who actually <i>are</i> right reject it as well.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So if Republicans can't change, then voters have to. The voting public <br />
must become more Republican. But here's where the Tea Party true <br />
believers run into trouble -- short of reeducation camps where hippies <br />
are made to listen to Limbaugh 24/7, there's no way to force voters to <br />
become enlightened in the ways of trickle-down, free market, <span data-scayt_word="fem'nist" data-scaytid="494">fem'nist</span> <span data-scayt_word="hatin" data-scaytid="481">hatin</span>', minority-bashing, Homosexual <span data-scayt_word="Menace-fightin" data-scaytid="491">Menace-fightin</span>' hoodoo.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So you chase liberals away from the polls. Instead of converting voters <br />
to Republicanism, you reduce the voting population until Republicans <br />
dominate. Which is why I don't hold out a lot of hope for the <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/voters-shouldnt-wait-longer-30-min" target="_blank" title="Obama panel: Voters shouldn't wait longer than half an hour">recommendations of a bipartisan panel</a><br />
on voting in America. Conservatives don't care about democracy, <br />
conservatives care about conservatism. So recommendations to improve <br />
voting in America will be fought tooth and nail, with lies about how <br />
they're all just an excuse to make voter fraud easier.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Ironically, the only way to beat voter suppression is to ruin <br />
Republicans at the polls. Thankfully, their voter suppression methods <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/171146/gops-failed-voter-suppression-strategy" target="_blank" title="How the GOP’s War on Voting Backfired">aren't nearly as effective</a> as the GOP had hoped.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
As much as they make a big show of "standing for liberty," Republicans <br />
don't believe in it. Not for everyone, anyway; only for the members of <br />
their orthodoxy. They believe in freedom in the same way that a dictator<br />
does -- plenty of freedom for themselves, not so much for everyone <br />
else. You see, the plebeians don't really know what's good for them, so <br />
it's the burden of the Enlightened to make their decisions for them. Too<br />
much freedom and you'll only hurt yourself with bad decisions about <br />
income inequality, the minimum wage, and "lifestyle choices" like <br />
homosexuality, contraception, and abortion.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The enemies of democracy are the enemies of freedom, since democracy <i>is</i> our most basic freedom. The right to vote is the right on which all other freedoms depend.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Use it or lose it, people.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="559">-Wisco</span><br /><br />
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fleshmanpix/6732133755/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Michael <span data-scayt_word="Fleshman" data-scaytid="574">Fleshman</span></i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-55276677588043235862014-01-21T10:16:00.001-06:002014-01-21T10:16:50.337-06:00Even Republican Voters Concerned about Income Inequality<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-68r4cmpAboI/Ut6Zx5R3WWI/AAAAAAAAI98/RVAD6ydQV_M/s1600/gallupgraph.png" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Click to Enlarge" border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-68r4cmpAboI/Ut6Zx5R3WWI/AAAAAAAAI98/RVAD6ydQV_M/s1600/gallupgraph.png" height="185" title="Click to Enlarge" width="360" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">[<i>Click to Enlarge</i>]</td></tr>
</tbody></table>67% of Americans are godless commies who hate capitalism and freedom. <br />
That is, if you use the metrics offered by rightwing media. If you tend <br />
to be more in line with mainstream thought, then the better take is that<br />
Americans are concerned about equality and fairness -- just as we <br />
always have been. And the bad news for Republicans is that all those <br />
capitalism-hatin' Marxists include a majority of their own voters.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
In all, 54% of Republican voters <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx" target="_blank" title="In U.S., 67% Dissatisfied With Income, Wealth Distribution">told Gallup</a><br />
that they were either very or somewhat dissatisfied with "the way <br />
income and wealth is distributed in the US." While this is way lower <br />
than the 67% of all Americans who answered likewise, there's still a <br />
majority of Republican voters echoing these Occupy movement sentiments. <br />
And if you remove Republicans from the equation to keep them from <br />
dragging down the curve, roughly three-quarters of respondents would <br />
agree that income inequality is not good for America.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Gallup analysis shows an opportunity for leadership by the president:<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
<i>Obama will almost certainly touch on inequality in his State of the <br />
Union address on Jan. 28. This will certainly resonate in a general <br />
sense with the majority of Americans who are dissatisfied with income <br />
and wealth distribution in the U.S. today. Members of the president's <br />
party agree most strongly with the president that this is an issue, but <br />
majorities of Republicans and independents are at least somewhat <br />
dissatisfied as well.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Although Americans are more likely to be satisfied with the opportunity <br />
for people to get ahead through hard work, their satisfaction is well <br />
below where it was before the economic downturn. Accordingly, <br />
improvement in the U.S. economy could bring Americans' views back to <br />
pre-recession levels.</i><br /><br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Everyone knows that Democrats plan to make income inequality an <br />
election-year issue and this has already put Republicans on the <br />
defensive. Paul Ryan, for his part, is hoping people forget the "takers <br />
v. makers" messaging of the Romney-Ryan campaign, which basically argued<br />
that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/17/romneys-theory-of-the-taker-class-and-why-it-matters/" target="_blank" title="Romney's theory of the 'taker class,' and why it matters">poverty in America is way too sweet a deal</a>,<br />
and see him instead as completely and miraculously transformed into St.<br />
Paul Ryan, Blessed Defender of the Downtrodden and Acolyte to Pope <br />
Francis.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The problem of course is that Ryan's merely repackaging the old <br />
"trickle-down" BS that Republicans can't seem to pull themselves away <br />
from, despite the fact that it's failed over and over again. The past <br />
three GOP presidents have tried it and it didn't work for any of them --<br />
<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/" target="_blank" title="10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan">including the guy who introduced it to voters</a>.<br />
So Ryan's problem -- and the Republican Party's -- is that all this new<br />
"friends of the poor" messaging sounds great, until you get into the <br />
mechanics. <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/war-poverty-paul-ryan-style" target="_blank" title="War on poverty, Paul Ryan style">Then it sounds stupid</a>.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So the only real effort to address poverty, income inequality, and <br />
unfair distribution of wealth is the old, tried-and-true, tested and <br />
proven progressive approach. Raise minimum wage, increase protections <br />
for workers, get the very wealthy to finally pay their fair share. <br />
Republicans will hate it, but they have nothing else to offer.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And that's why income inequality will be a big issue for Democrats in <br />
the 2014 midterms -- because Republicans' only defense is BS that's so <br />
worn out that only that gullible 45% of Republican voters will fall for <br />
it. You know, the same ones who think every word from Rush Limbaugh is <br />
Gospel; the dopes, the eternal chumps, the reliable pigeons always <br />
begging to be plucked. The ones who, for whatever reason, <i>want</i> to be fooled.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Whether the issue can turn an election remains to be seen. But if it <br />
isn't a winner, it'll be because Republicans successfully changed the <br />
subject. Which is why Democrats need to stick to their guns and stay on <br />
message.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
This is a debate Republicans cannot win. So they'll most likely try to avoid having it at all.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-WiscoWiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-7055023901780598002014-01-17T10:34:00.001-06:002014-01-17T10:34:45.147-06:00How the Gun Industry Profits Off the Carnage its Product Creates<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xovglakQpxs/UtlX3ZexdVI/AAAAAAAAI9M/eLlqUuVAE_k/s1600/wayne.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="NRA's Wayne LaPierre" border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xovglakQpxs/UtlX3ZexdVI/AAAAAAAAI9M/eLlqUuVAE_k/s1600/wayne.jpg" height="118" title="NRA's Wayne LaPierre" width="360" /></a></div>It's one of the gun lobby's and firearms industry's most successful scams; the "fear buying" marketing campaign. The way it works is this, you convince a certain cowardly subset of the population that there's some imminent threat to their safety or that the government is minutes away from scooping up all their guns and said cowardly subset will run out in a fit of panic buying, like people who get into fights over water before a big storm.<br />
<br />
And how do we know it's the same subset every time? Because the numbers are too contradictory any other way. After a string of high profile and extremely shocking killings in 2013, it started to look like some real action was about to take place in the arena of gun safety. That this didn't happen is a matter of national shame, but the panic buying set in, making 2013 a banner year for firearms sales.<br />
<br />
So, did everyone run out and buy a lot of guns and ammunition? Actually, no. Hardly anyone did. A study launched by the General Social Survey showed that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank" title="Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline">gun ownership was actually at a 40-year low</a>. Logic dictates that these are the same panicky grandmas out buying guns in a <span data-scayt_word="Pavlovian" data-scaytid="25">Pavlovian</span> response to perceived danger -- danger that the guns would become illegal, danger that some other unhinged shooter would attack them, or both. And the gun-buying was in no way rational. If you're extremely skilled, you might be able to use two firearms at once, but record sales after record sales, combined with the number of gun-owning households in free fall, suggests these people have a lot more guns than two, which means a lot more guns than they can use at any given time.<br />
<br />
So the "safety" conferred by gun ownership starts to look a lot more talismanic than utilitarian. In other words, the "guns keep you safe" argument basically becomes superstition.<br />
<br />
And, of course, the gun industry is looking to go back to the well yet again, using their favorite marketing firm -- the gun lobby.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/17/3175361/gun-industry-looking-forward-2016-election-paranoia-bigger-profit/" target="_blank" title="Gun Industry Already Looking Forward To 2016 Election Paranoia For Even Bigger Profit"><span data-scayt_word="ThinkProgress" data-scaytid="111">ThinkProgress</span></a>:</b> On Thursday, <span data-scayt_word="Businessweek’s" data-scaytid="115">Businessweek’s</span> Paul Barrett declared it the <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-16/at-the-vegas-gun-trade-show-its-the-year-of-the-woman">“the year of the woman,”</a> at the 2014 Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade show, as the industry turns its attention on marketing to women. Reporting from the annual gun show, Feldman told Barrett that gun retailers look forward to reaping profits from “fear-buying” ahead of the 2016 presidential election:<br />
<br />
<tt>The mood is upbeat, but the crazed buying frenzy of last year is over. Demand for ammunition is still unbelievably strong, but the gun makers know it’s time to market and sell product, not simply write orders that can’t possibly be filled.<b> The next ramp-up in sales may not occur until the 2016 presidential campaign gets going in earnest. The more likely a Hillary Clinton victory looks, the more advance ‘fear buying’ will recur. </b>While most may vote Republican, manufacturers and retailers secretly hope for a repeat of the ‘Obama surge’ that has boosted sales since 2009.</tt><br />
<br />
The gun lobby’s use of paranoid theories to boost gun sales has been a common tactic during the Obama administration. In both 2008 and 2012, the National Rifle Association told its members that Obama <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/">secretly planned</a> to confiscate firearms, despite Obama’s conspicuous silence on the issue of gun violence throughout the election.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
So they'll fire up the old "gun-grabber" myth machine and watch the chumps flock to by more guns than they can possibly use. At this point, it pays to consider those two trend lines -- gun ownership declining while gun purchases increase. There's a certain distillation going on here. All those guns are in fewer and fewer people's hands, meaning that ever-shrinking group of pigeons is responsible for an ever-growing number of firearms purchases. And that in turn at least suggests that many of the remaining gun purchasers probably don't have it all on the ball. After all, you don't amass more weapons than you could possibly use -- and do it in the name of safety -- if things are running like clockwork upstairs.<br />
<br />
So what the firearms industry and gun lobby are doing is basically the same as a vodka company launching a marketing campaign aimed straight at alcoholics. There's a reason why distilleries don't do that, despite the fact that it would be tremendously profitable -- it's irresponsible to the point of soullessness. And this is actually worse, because a vodka company can't use a alcohol-fueled car wreck as an opportunity to sell booze. But gun companies can use gun massacres as an opportunity to sell guns -- and they do. Over and over and over again, to the same group of paranoid <span data-scayt_word="gun-aholics" data-scaytid="164">gun-aholics</span>.<br />
<br />
In terms of pure, raw evil, the gun industry makes the tobacco industry look like Little Bo Peep. Yes, cigarette companies sell a product they know kills people. And yes, they lied in denying the danger of their product for decades. But no tobacco exec ever launched a "cigarettes cure cancer" campaign, turning the deaths caused by their product into a reason to buy it.<br />
<br />
That's basically what the firearms industry is doing. An <span data-scayt_word="ouroboros" data-scaytid="221">ouroboros</span> campaign where you need guns to protect yourself from all the guns and the more guns you have, the better off you are, because the number of guns out there keeps growing. A big magical circle, where you buy the cause to protect yourself from the effect.<br />
<br />
Guns cure guns. So buy a handful today.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="217">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6876999913/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage <span data-scayt_word="Skidmore" data-scaytid="222">Skidmore</span></i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-28183114761801440592014-01-15T10:12:00.001-06:002014-01-15T10:12:54.222-06:00Republicans Mugging Republicans<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WHVmWzRv-Ik/UtavIaDy0NI/AAAAAAAAI8k/Vucqhx7DdDE/s1600/800px-Jack_Dempsey,_Harry_Houdini_and_Benny_Leonard2.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Vintage photo of people staging a mugging" border="0" height="257" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-WHVmWzRv-Ik/UtavIaDy0NI/AAAAAAAAI8k/Vucqhx7DdDE/s400/800px-Jack_Dempsey,_Harry_Houdini_and_Benny_Leonard2.jpg" title="Vintage photo of people staging a mugging" width="360" /></a></div>It's been said that a Republican is just a liberal who's been mugged. Of course, it tends to be Republicans who say this, since it makes very little sense. Being the victim of a crime may change your opinions about law enforcement or gun control, but why would being mugged make you oppose abortion or women's rights or same sex marriage. Why would being mugged make you <i>more</i> accepting of the Wall Street corporate crime wave? Why would being mugged make you think that labor unions must be broken and the minimum wage left at a pittance? And why would being mugged make you decide that giving everything to the rich and nothing to the poor is a good idea? Is the argument that being mugged makes you stupid?<br />
<br />
A truer take on that <span data-scayt_word="cliche" data-scaytid="1">cliche</span> might be that being mugged turns you Democrat -- at least, when those muggers are Republicans.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/15/3163871/long-term-unemployed-republican/" target="_blank" title="The Long-Term Unemployed Sound Off: 'I Will Never Vote For A Republican Again'">ThinkProgress</a>:</b> On Tuesday, a potential agreement to extend benefits for those who have been out of work for six months or more <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/01/14/3162831/senate-unemployment-benefits-fail/">fell apart over squabbling about procedural disagreements</a> in the Senate. That fight came <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/28/3105511/unemployment-benefits-expire/">two and a half weeks</a> after those checks stopped going out to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/07/2906661/unemployment-benefits-2014/">millions of Americans</a>, and it doesn’t look like it will be resolved in the next two weeks. Congress let the program lapse at the end of the year, which offered support to the jobless after their state benefits ran out, drying up a lifeline for those who are struggling to find a new job.<br />
<br />
The people who have been left without that support are incensed, and the anger reaches across party lines. In an email to ThinkProgress, Peter LeClair, an out of work investment manager from New York, said he has been a lifelong Republican. But he “will never vote for a Republican, as long as I live” after watching them say that relying on unemployment benefits makes people dependent. “I am incensed with this Rand Paul,” he said, who has said extending the benefits would “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/09/3036681/rand-paul-unemployment/">do a disservice</a>” to those who were relying on them. “He says I am lazy... I am not lazy, how dare he. He doesn’t even know me.”<br />
<br />
LeClair says he has sent out over 2,000 resumes and been “rejected on a daily basis.” The benefits, which he pointed out he paid into while he worked for more than 20 years, were the only think keeping him “glued together financially.” He said he is “absolutely shocked and dismayed” with Republicans, reiterating, “I will never, so help me god, vote for a Republican again, period.”</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Of course, <span data-scayt_word="LeClair's" data-scaytid="10">LeClair's</span> not the only one. "I read these politicians’ opinions of the unemployed and am furious at the implication as it correlates to my situation," says another. Yet another says she "was barely making ends meet with what little bit of benefits I was receiving. Now that they have expired, my children and I are literally homeless."<br />
<br />
Once you see what Republicans' economic babble actually means to real people, once you become one of the many, many groups of Americans they tell lies about, the GOP doesn't seem like a party with such great ideas anymore. Once Republicanism meets your personal reality, you find they just don't mix.<br />
<br />
Of course, the first clue should've been the glaring inconsistencies in GOP messaging; a rocky recovery and high unemployment are the fault of economic policies one minute, then they're the fault of lazy, work-rejecting "takers" the next. It would be helpful if they made up their minds before they opened their mouths. Never mind that there are <a href="http://www.epi.org/publication/ratio-job-seekers-job-openings-holds-steady/" target="_blank" title="Ratio of Job Seekers to Job Openings Holds Steady at 2.9-to-1, Equal to the Worst Month of Early 2000s Downturn">roughly three <span data-scayt_word="jobseekers" data-scaytid="11">jobseekers</span> for every job</a>, if everyone just hunkers down and looks really, really hard and wishes with all their little heart, everyone can find work -- because math is science and science is of the devil. In Republican World, three is not greater than one, three is equal to one; mostly because anything else would screw up their messaging on unemployment benefits.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://gripernews.blogspot.com/2014/01/stories-to-watch-11414.html" target="_blank" title="Stories to Watch: 1/14/14">As I wrote yesterday</a>, the best Democratic recruiting tool is probably Republicans.<br />
<br />
Here's the problem with the conservative approach to problem-solving: when a Republican sees a problem, they immediately look for someone to punish. Oddly, that someone is usually the person suffering from the problem. So if you're hungry, no food stamps. If you're poor, no assistance. If you're unemployed, no benefits. It's like seeing someone on the side of the road with a flat, pulling over, and beating them with the tire iron -- then driving away assuming you fixed their flat.<br />
<br />
The only thing Republicans seem to think people in struggling families should get from anyone is bullets from Second Amendment Heroes standing their ground against them. Free rein for Wall Street; free bullets in the chest for working people.<br />
<br />
You almost wish you could make everyone who votes Republican live the lives of the people Republicans attack, if only for a few days. But of course, this is a cruel wish. Just because a Republican who's been mugged by their party becomes a Democrat, it's no good reason to wish them a beating.<br />
<br />
We're better than that. After all, we aren't Republicans.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="18">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jack_Dempsey,_Harry_Houdini_and_Benny_Leonard2.jpg" target="_blank"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="25">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-38390273725135303732014-01-14T10:06:00.001-06:002014-01-14T10:06:27.464-06:00Ironically, As Long As There Are Gay Republicans, The GOP Will Think It's OK To Bash Gays<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j5E9mGigXjY/UtVcvDyG6NI/AAAAAAAAI8M/SEkpAlZd1do/s1600/gayrepublican.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Demotivational poster - 'The Gay Republican - WHY?'" border="0" height="280" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j5E9mGigXjY/UtVcvDyG6NI/AAAAAAAAI8M/SEkpAlZd1do/s400/gayrepublican.jpg" title="Demotivational poster - 'The Gay Republican - WHY?'" width="360" /></a></div>The Republican Party just lost a voter. Or, at least, a member. In a post to his blog, <span data-scayt_word="GOProud" data-scaytid="2">GOProud</span> co-founder Jimmy <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="3">LaSalvia</span> announces that while the "Proud" part still applies, he is no longer GOP.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://jimmylasalvia.com/2014/01/13/no-party/" target="_blank" title="No Party">Jimmy <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="4">LaSalvia</span></a>:</b> Today, I joined the ranks of unaffiliated voters. I am every bit as conservative as I’ve always been, but I just can’t bring myself to carry the Republican label any longer. You see, I just don’t agree with the big-government ‘conservatives’ who run the party now.<br />
<br />
The other reason I am leaving is the tolerance of bigotry in the GOP. The current leadership lacks the courage to stand up to it – I’m not sure they ever will.<br />
<br />
I have worked hard to help to create an atmosphere on the right where conservatives can openly support gay Americans and even support same-sex marriage. In that effort, we have won, but there is more work to do to root out the anti-gay and other forms of bigotry in the party.<br />
<br />
So I changed my voter registration today – “No Party.”</i><br />
<br />
<br />
For those who need to catch up here, GOProud is an organization of LGBT Republicans who seem to exist solely to demonstrate that there <i>are</i> <span data-scayt_word="LGBT" data-scaytid="13">LGBT</span> Republicans. It's an offshoot of the Log Cabin Republicans, a similar group that <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="14">LaSalvia</span> and fellow <span data-scayt_word="GOProud" data-scaytid="15">GOProud</span> co-founder Christopher R. Barron left because it was "too centrist."<br />
<br />
There's a lot that's confusing about all this; not the least of which is that <span data-scayt_word="GOProud" data-scaytid="1">GOProud</span> itself hasn't had the best record of standing up to Republican bigots. The group argues that marriage equality is a state's rights issue (meaning they've washed their hands of the issue). The group seems to have started off as a way for gay conservatives and other Republicans to find common ground -- while glossing over their more conspicuous differences -- but has more recently started showing signs of being gay conservatives standing up for themselves.<br />
<br />
In the 2012 presidential campaign, <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="42">LaSalvia</span> outed Tony <span data-scayt_word="Fabrizio" data-scaytid="48">Fabrizio</span>, Rick Perry's campaign pollster, over a homophobic campaign ad put out by the Perry campaign. "I've just about had it with faggots who line their pockets with checks from anti-gay homophobes while throwing the rest of us under the bus," <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/08/tony-fabrizio-rick-perry-pollster-gay_n_1137091.html" target="_blank" title="Tony Fabrizio, Rick Perry's Top Pollster, Is Gay: GOProud Leader "><span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="128">LaSalvia</span> said</a>, outing <span data-scayt_word="Fabrizio" data-scaytid="155">Fabrizio</span> on Twitter.<br />
<br />
So the evolution of Jimmy <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="169">LaSalvia</span> from token apologist to change-from-within activist is pretty clear here. He started off as part of a group arguing that gay Republicans should just ignore all the homophobia and work together with bigots for the greater good. Now he's not interested in ignoring all the homophobia.<br />
<br />
Leaving the GOP seems to be a no-brainer here, but you have to question the effectiveness of the example in bringing about change. He says he's now an "independent conservative," but who do you think indie conservatives vote for? If you're not registered as a Republican, why should anyone care? As long as you vote Republican, your official voter registration is basically just a technicality. There's a constitutional remedy to Republican bigots in office. You vote them out of office. The Republican Party isn't going to change until people who vote Republican begin to go away. Maybe that means voting Democrat, maybe that means not voting at all. But it <i>does</i> mean not voting Republican. Or at least, only voting for the highly endangered gay rights-supporting Republicans.<br />
<br />
Jimmy <span data-scayt_word="LaSalvia" data-scaytid="339">LaSalvia</span>'s evolution has definitely been heading in the right direction, but it may still have a way to go. The only way to fix this party is to be willing to hurt it. Because as long as you're still willing to vote GOP, you're rewarding hate.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="379">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mariopiperni/7258487670/" target="_blank"><i>image by Mario <span data-scayt_word="Piperni" data-scaytid="417">Piperni</span></i></a>] Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-32353420143213202252014-01-09T09:57:00.001-06:002014-01-09T09:57:14.740-06:00Leaving the Polar Vortex and the Climate Change 'Skepticism' Cult Behind<center><iframe width="360" height="203" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/5eDTzV6a9F4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center>Somewhere between 11 AM to 2 PM today, I can expect to leave the dreaded polar vortex. We expect a balmy high temperature of 18 degrees Fahrenheit today. This would still seem frigid on any other day, but given the previous few days, it's a heat wave. What follows will be a more actual heat wave -- a January thaw, with above freezing temperatures through the weekend. Believe it or not, this is also dangerous weather, as melting ice and snow freeze at night and into the morning, creating hazardous driving conditions. A lot of salt is going to be sold to keep people's sidewalks clear of ice.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Meanwhile, the vortex drifts east. Meaning that Washington will still be very cold while Wisconsin is very warm. And the people up here in the normally frozen wastes will be treated to DC loudmouths saying that cold weather in the nation's capital means global warming is a hoax -- meanwhile, we'll be watching the snow melt off our roofs in the dead of January. The contrast will be stunning and the climate change deniers will once again look like morons. DC is not the entire world. The "global" in global warming means something; it's not a synonym for "local."<br /><br />
<br /><br />
And of course, once the vortex moves on from DC, we won't hear a peep about how the current weather proves global warming wrong, since the east coast gets our weather systems eventually. The weather will seem very much like what you'd expect from global warming, at which point the moron chorus of deniers will fall silent -- just as they do during summer droughts and heat waves. For them, a cold few days proves global warming is a hoax, but a decades-long warming trend is just natural variation in global temperature that <i>real</i> scientists (i.e., Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly) are smart enough to ignore and "fake" scientists (AKA actual scientists) attach way too much significance to.<br />
<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eDTzV6a9F4#action=share" target="_blank" title="The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes">White House video above</a> explains the polar vortex and its connection to climate change. But we can't expect it to change deniers' minds. At this point, climate "skepticism" is religion, entirely divorced from any scientific method. If it wasn't, then they'd apply the same logic to summer heat waves that they do to winter cold snaps -- hot weather proves global warming and cold weather disproves it. It's still bad science and it would have them rushing back and forth from totally convinced in the summer to totally unconvinced in the winter. But at least it would represent a consistent approach to the evidence.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
The fact that they don't approach all evidence the same way pretty much proves how insincere and unserious the deniers are. The trolling-based reasoning of conservative politics has bled over into science -- that is, if liberals believe it, it must be wrong. That's the basis of their denial and all this weather-based idiocy is merely rationalization and window dressing. If it had been George HW Bush with the <i>An Inconvenient Truth</i> presentation, rather than Al Gore, global warming might be a cornerstone of conservative thought. Teabaggers would be driving around using their Sacred Second Amendment Freedoms to shoot out inefficient lightbulbs and save America.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
But that is not the case. It was Al Gore who made climate change an important issue, so it must be some sort of communist plot.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
So we midwesterners need to make sure that while Republicans in Washington use their cold snap to "disprove" global warming, we're talking about how unseasonably warm it is, while pointing and laughing at the jerks spouting nonsense.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Global means global, not "only what I can see in front of me." When idiots say cold weather disproves global warming, those of us living where it's not cold need to speak up.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
-WiscoWiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-39391269971780887162014-01-08T10:12:00.001-06:002014-01-08T10:12:02.509-06:00Boehner Demands That Someone Else Shoot a Hostage for Him<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lsd0Z3gL6q8/Us113GrjdWI/AAAAAAAAI6o/IOWLqOM_238/s1600/boehner.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Boehner" border="0" height="239" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lsd0Z3gL6q8/Us113GrjdWI/AAAAAAAAI6o/IOWLqOM_238/s1600/boehner.jpg" title="Boehner" width="360" /></a></div>John Boehner will never be described as a Profile in Courage.<br />
<br />
Yesterday, Boehner issued a statement following a senate cloture vote to advance an extension of unemployment benefits. "One month ago I personally told the White House that another extension of temporary emergency unemployment benefits should not only be paid for but include something to help put people back to work," <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-statement-jobs" target="_blank" title="Boehner Statement on Jobs">a written statement reads</a>. "To date, the president has offered no such plan. If he does, I’ll be happy to discuss it, but right now the House is going to remain focused on growing the economy and giving America’s unemployed the independence that only comes from finding a good job."<br />
<br />
So basically, Boehner says he wants another hostage shot before he'll release this particular hostage. "There’s quite a bit wrong with this," <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/boehner-eyes-jobless-leverage" target="_blank" title="Boehner eyes jobless as leverage">says Steve <span data-scayt_word="Benen" data-scaytid="1">Benen</span></a>. "For example, Boehner knows jobless Americans need these benefits and knows cutting off aid will hurt the economy, but insists on spending cuts to offset the costs. Why? He didn’t say. What needs to get cut? He didn’t say. Why have Republicans supported previous extensions without offsetting cuts, only to change course now? He didn’t say."<br />
<br />
He wants something cut. He knows there are no popular cuts to make. So he demands that <i>someone else</i> do the dirty work. Choose what gets cut <i>for</i> him or the long term unemployed get it. He wants an unpopular slashing of something or other -- simply for the sake of appearances -- and he wants to be able to walk away with the appearance of clean hands. He wants the extension paid for, but he wants someone else (preferably the White House) to take the blame for that offset.<br />
<br />
As I said, no Profile in Courage here.<br />
<br />
It'd be a lot easier to take Boehner seriously if he could actually articulate what it is exactly that he wants, but I doubt even he knows. This is more a case of opportunism than anything. The Speaker thinks he can maybe, possibly squeeze a little something-something out of this situation; even if he isn't extremely clear on what that something might be.<br />
<br />
"The larger takeaway from the statement is that the Speaker of the House sees the Senate moving on unemployment benefits and wants to make it perfectly clear that he has certain <i>expectations</i>," <span data-scayt_word="Benen" data-scaytid="2">Benen</span> explains. "While some see this as an emergency for struggling families and a key economic issue, Boehner senses an <i>opportunity</i> -- the plight of jobless Americans can be exploited to advance Republican priorities." Which priorities? Well, we'll leave that up to the President to decide.<br />
<br />
Add "leadership" to the list of those admirable qualities John of Orange most sorely lacks.<br />
<br />
The question here is whether Boehner is bluffing. I haven't seen a whip count yet, but it's entirely plausible that an extension could pass the House on mainly Democratic votes. All Weepy John needs to do is bring it up for a vote. So the thing that would prevent this <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/12/26/3104601/poll-emergency-unemployment-benefits/" target="_blank" title="Poll Finds Strong National Support For Extending Unemployment Benefits">very popular extension</a> from happening is good old fashioned Republican obstructionism -- in an election year.<br />
<br />
Boehner might possibly be able to walk away from his unspecified offset with clean hands, but not so with shooting the hostage if he doesn't get his way. If the extension dies in the House, everyone will know why. And everyone will know whodunit.<br />
<br />
It's hard to see how he can shoot the hostage, when he so clearly wants someone else to take the blame for everything. It would be a bit of a suicide mission and, as I've already pointed out, John Boehner doesn't have the courage for that sort of thing.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="8">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/6871664609/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage <span data-scayt_word="Skidmore" data-scaytid="9">Skidmore</span></i></a>] Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-72342946094931697302014-01-07T11:02:00.001-06:002014-01-07T11:02:30.721-06:00The Marketers of Fear<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RiLtIUaq_qU/UswuY7oO6vI/AAAAAAAAI6I/FcrYEqHpHBk/s1600/gunpile.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Big pile of firearms" border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RiLtIUaq_qU/UswuY7oO6vI/AAAAAAAAI6I/FcrYEqHpHBk/s1600/gunpile.jpg" height="163" title="Big pile of firearms" width="360" /></a></div>Maybe it got lost in the annual post-Holiday news outage, but <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/spike-in-mass-shootings-creates-demand-for-different-police-approach-132625638.html" target="_blank" title="Spike in mass shootings creates demand for different police approach">Yahoo! News reported</a> on the second day of the new year that a study by the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (<span data-scayt_word="ALERRT" data-scaytid="64">ALERRT</span>) Center at Texas State University shows a definite uptick in the occurrence of mass shootings in the United States. According to the report, investigators counted only those sorts of crimes that immediately come to mind when you hear the term "mass shooting." These are a separate sort of crime, distinguished by more than the death tolls.<br />
<br />
"Researchers considered only active shootings in public settings where the primary motive appeared to be mass murder and at least one of the victims was unrelated to the suspect. Shootings during crimes such as bank robberies, drug deals, and gang violence were excluded," Yahoo reported -- i.e., crimes where the sole purpose was to kill people. Incidences rose from five a year in 2000-2008 to sixteen a year in the period of 2009-2012.<br />
<br />
Of course, this undercuts the <a href="http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/12/no-mass-shootings-are-not-on-the-increase/" target="_blank" title="No, Mass Shootings are Not on the Increase">gunners' claims</a> that the opposite is true. And even those claims are <span data-scayt_word="cherrypicked" data-scaytid="72">cherrypicked</span>. They cite the work of Northeastern University <span data-scayt_word="Lipman" data-scaytid="66">Lipman</span> Family Professor of Criminology, Law and Public Policy James Alan Fox. Fox does not weed out the "bank robberies, drug deals, and gang violence" that <span data-scayt_word="ALERRT" data-scaytid="67">ALERRT</span> did. He does, however, recommend gun control policies -- a fact the gun apologists conveniently skip over.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/no_increase_in_mass_shootings.html" target="_blank" title="No increase in mass shootings"><b>James Alan Fox</b></a><span id="byline"><b>:</b></span> The lack of any upward trend should not stop us, of course, from trying to find causes and solutions for extreme violence. A fitting the legacy to this summer's tragedies [<i>this was </i><i>after Aurora and the Sikh </i><i>temple shooting in Wisconsin, but before </i><i>Newtown</i>] would be the expansion of mental health services. We should also have a serious debate about sensible restrictions on gun sales but absent the politics. And perhaps we should all try harder to reach out to those around us who seem to be struggling financially, socially or psychologically.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately and realistically, these and other initiatives may not prevent or deter the next mass murderer living amongst us. But in the process of trying, we may actually enhance the safety and well-being of thousands, if not millions, of Americans.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
In other words, Fox's reasoning when it comes to law and crime is the same as humanity's has been since the dawn of civilization; just because someone may not obey a law does not mean it's completely unenforceable or ineffective. The gun lobby argues the opposite; that since some criminals will disobey laws limiting firearms, these laws shouldn't be passed at all. Of course, this makes as much sense as saying that since some criminals ignore laws against rape, there should be no laws against rape at all.<br />
<br />
This all boils down to what the gun lobby really stands for -- and that is gun sales. They don't represent gun owners, as much as they insist otherwise. They represent gun manufacturers. They aren't interested in the safety of gun owners. In fact, they have every incentive to undermine that safety. Nothing sells guns like fear. And nothing promotes fear like frequent mass murder in the headlines. More guns = more murder = more gun sales. <a href="http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-reports-gun-sales-surge-in-newtown-after-shooting/" target="_blank" title="CNN Reports: Gun Sales Surge In Newtown After Shooting">The best marketing campaign for guns is high-profile gun violence</a>, hands down.<br />
<br />
Would that be particularly evil of the gun lobby and firearms manufacturers? Yes it would. But it would hardly be an unprecedented level of corporate evil. Think Big Tobacco denying the link between smoking and cancer, while sitting on research that proved that link existed. Think Big Oil, who undermine efforts to fight global warming in order to sell five minutes more worth of fossil fuels. If the choice is between money or lives, corporate America will choose money every time. And they'll launch a big PR campaign to confuse the whole issue and blow smoke over that whole loss of life thing.<br />
<br />
So you could say that an increase in mass shootings represents everything going the gun lobby's way. They're selling more guns than ever, because people are more afraid of gunmen than ever -- with good reason. The gun lobby exists to offer the exact wrong solution to a problem its own industry creates. Can you imagine how much <i>more</i> profitable Big Tobacco could've been if they'd figured out a way to use smoking deaths to create more smokers?<br />
<br />
That's what you're seeing here. Every new gravestone represents new sales. Don't fool yourself. This may just be the way they like it.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="68">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
<br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gun_pyre_in_Uhuru_Gardens,_Nairobi.jpg" target="_BLANK"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="69">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-42113395340244252142013-12-16T09:29:00.001-06:002013-12-16T09:29:31.498-06:00The Brief Life of Bipartisanship and the Return of the Wingnuts<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zCCPHGQEON0/Uq8YgahpWFI/AAAAAAAAI5k/qlvZOtXLOTU/s1600/ryancons.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Ryan" border="0" height="239" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zCCPHGQEON0/Uq8YgahpWFI/AAAAAAAAI5k/qlvZOtXLOTU/s400/ryancons.jpg" title="Ryan" width="360" /></a></div>Hey, remember how the modest two year budget deal hammered out by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray was a sign that insane partisanship was on its way out? Yeah, you can stop shoveling dirt in gridlock's grave, because Republican hostage-taking isn't all that very dead yet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/15/ryan-says-gop-to-make-debt-ceiling-demands-in-early-14/" target="_blank" title="Ryan Says GOP to Make Debt-Ceiling Demands in Early '14"><i><b>Wall Street Journal</b></i></a><b>:</b> House Budget Committee Chairman <a href="http://topics.wsj.com/person/R/paul,-ryan/6420">Paul Ryan</a> (R., <span data-scayt_word="Wis" data-scaytid="1">Wis</span>.) signaled that Republicans would not raise the debt ceiling next year without some sort of concessions from Democrats, saying lawmakers were still crafting their strategy.<br />
<br />
“We, as a caucus, along with our Senate counterparts, are going to meet and discuss what it is we want to get out of the debt limit,” Mr. Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. “We don’t want ‘nothing’ out of the debt limit. We’re going to decide what it is we can accomplish out of this debt limit fight.”<br />
<br />
The U.S. government spends more money than it brings in through taxes, which means the Treasury Department has to borrow money by issuing debt. The government can only borrow money up to a certain level - called the debt ceiling – which is set by Congress. In October, lawmakers agreed to “suspend” the debt limit until Feb. 7, 2014. The White House has said it will no longer negotiate with Republicans on conditions for raising the debt limit, but many Republicans have said they will only vote to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for budget changes like spending cuts.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
Is it an empty threat? Maybe. Democrats and the White House have adopted a "no negotiating with hostage-takers" policy, making it clear that only clean debt ceiling bills will be considered. They can do this because the previous debt ceiling fiasco and the more recent government shutdown have firmly established the GOP as the usual suspects to rounded up when that particular brand of mayhem goes down.<br />
<br />
But the fact is that the far right are not at all happy with the budget deal and it may be that GOP leadership -- or just Ryan himself -- sees the need to throw red meat to the 'baggers.The Tea Party may have lost a lot of clout by demanding suicidal moves from the Republican Party, but they're still going to have an <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/tea-party-candidates-launch-battle-gop-honchos-article-1.1548273" target="_blank" title="Tea Party candidates launch battle against Republican honchos">outsized influence</a> on the party's primaries. These <span data-scayt_word="TP" data-scaytid="5">TP</span> candidates <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/don-t-worry-republicans-your-tea-party-challengers-aren-t-going-to-win-20131210" target="_blank" title="Don't Worry Republicans, Your Tea Party Challengers Aren't Going to Win">may not stand much of a chance</a> of making a real dent in incumbents, but that doesn't mean that party establishment types don't have to take them seriously. Those 'bagger candidates will run ads and those ads will need to be answered. Money will have to be spent -- money candidates would much rather spend in the general election against their Democratic rivals.<br />
<br />
And, of course, it wouldn't be a Republican primary without candidates trying to <span data-scayt_word="out-wingnut" data-scaytid="62">out-wingnut</span> each other. This is probably the bigger problem for GOP candidates -- the primary pulls them way over to the right and when they try a Mitt Romney-like shift back toward the middle in the general, they find it's just too far to go. You can't have sound-bite after sound-bite promising all-out war against Democratic policies, only to later contradict them all by promising to work toward greater unity in Washington. Yet this is what Republicans in more competitive general election fights will be forced to do.<br />
<br />
And Paul Ryan's preemptive hostage-taking is the party already being dragged right. He knows this sort of talk doesn't fly with anyone at all other than the <span data-scayt_word="teabaggers" data-scaytid="134">teabaggers</span>, but he figures the damage done by <strike>betraying America and sleeping with the enemy</strike> hammering out a pitifully limited and unambitious budget deal with Patty Murray is a wound that needs first aid pronto.<br />
<br />
This is yet another corner the GOP have painted themselves into; if they ignore the outraged base and insist -- as they have been -- that the Ryan-Murray deal is how Washington is <i>supposed </i>to work, the 'baggers completely lose it and all hell eventually breaks loose. If they cave into the base and crash the economy with a doomed debt ceiling fight, they deliver yet another self-inflicted wound to a party already dying a demographic death of a thousand cuts. And worst of all, it's hard to see how they could've avoided it. All the traps the GOP snare themselves in these days were actually set long ago, when they decided to use <span data-scayt_word="rightwing" data-scaytid="177">rightwing</span> media to outrage Republican voters over things that aren't actually real. Now those voters <i>demand</i> that Republicans respond to those fantasy problems in the fantasy world, rather than the real problems in this world. The party has completely lost control of their messaging and now their BS is in control of them. What about the birth certificate? What about all the plots to bring communism to America? Disarming patriots and sending them to FEMA camps? The UN takeover? What about <i><b>BENGHAZI!!</b></i>?<br />
<br />
So how does Ryan get out of this particular self-laid bear trap? I'm not really sure. And I kind of doubt he knows. Which means there could be a debt limit debacle in the cards. It seems doubtful -- Republicans know they're bluffing and they know Democrats will call their bluff -- but what else is there?<br />
<br />
The sin of getting government to work in even the most modest way demands an atonement. And Paul Ryan isn't eager to lie down on that sacrificial altar himself.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="225">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/8566888917/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage <span data-scayt_word="Skidmore" data-scaytid="297">Skidmore</span></i></a>]<br />
<i> </i></div>Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-71100110810950512912013-12-13T09:34:00.001-06:002013-12-13T09:34:02.007-06:00Busting the Myth of the Victorious Gun Lobby<h3 class="post-title entry-title"></h3><div class="post-body entry-content"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4nKMBnaqmv4/Uqslwvs_wQI/AAAAAAAAI5U/-2tT0ry-xto/s1600/gallupgraphic.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="194" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4nKMBnaqmv4/Uqslwvs_wQI/AAAAAAAAI5U/-2tT0ry-xto/s400/gallupgraphic.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>You're familiar with the narrative by now. One year after the Sandy Hook Massacre, where gunman Adam Lanza took the lives of twenty young children and six adults, Americans are no safer from gun violence than they were before. Worse, because conservatives are reactionaries and their first impulse is to respond to liberal arguments with contrarian dickishness, legislation has been passed in more Republican areas that actually <i>loosen </i>gun laws. The narrative is, as one <i>Washington Post</i> blogger put it, that "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/12/11/how-gun-control-is-losing-badly-in-charts/" target="_blank" title="How gun control is losing, badly (in charts)">gun control is losing, badly</a>."<br />
<br />
But the chart above is from that very blogger's post. A <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx" target="_blank" title="Gallup: Guns">Gallup poll shows</a> that the appetite for stricter gun control is still there. It is, in fact, quite easily the most popular opinion, beating the "no change" crowd by more than 10 points and soaring over those who want to weaken gun laws by <i>36 points</i>. Further, gun ownership is down from an all-time high of 51% of respondents to an anemic 37% -- with a particularly steep decline since Sandy Hook. If we could have a national referendum on gun safety right now, strengthening gun laws would win in a landslide.<br />
<br />
Mitt Romney wishes he could've been "losing" like this. He would've been losing all the way to the White House.</div><div class="post-body entry-content"> </div><div class="post-body entry-content">Further pouring cold water on the media's victory celebration for the gun lobby is <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/12/state-gun-laws-after-newtown" target="_blank" title="More Than Half of Americans Now Have Tougher Gun Laws"><i>Mother Jones'</i> Mark Follman</a>, who finds that the push for stricter gun restrictions has largely been a success, despite the media narrative portraying the opposite.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>[N]o, the gun lobby did not "win." The real action after Newtown was not in the nation's capital—it was in most statehouses around the country, where no fewer than 114 bills were signed into law, aiming in both political directions. America has warred over its deep-rooted gun culture on and off for decades, and Newtown set off a major mobilization on both sides.<br />
<br />
Determining how that battle changed the terrain in 2013 isn't just a matter of the total number of laws passed (some of which contain multiple measures), but also the types of activity and swaths of population they affect. Unsurprisingly, the redder states mostly continued to deregulate firearms, while bluer coastal states—and a more politically split Colorado—moved aggressively to tighten restrictions.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
America did pass more laws loosening gun laws than tightening them, but those laws were passed where fewer people actually live. The fact of the matter is that, in terms of actual populations covered by laws, gun safety advocates have quietly been winning big. Comparing the gun lobby's 75 wins to gun safety advocates' 56 is extremely misleading. Passing legislation is like running a business -- you try to compete where it's easiest win. And where it's easiest to win is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gun-control-groups-are-shifting-efforts-and-resources-to-handful-of-states/2013/12/11/f81e41b2-61f4-11e3-8beb-3f9a9942850f_story.html" target="_blank" title="Gun-control groups are shifting efforts and resources to handful of states">most places other than Washington</a>.<br />
<br />
Right now, that means state by state. If it comes down to it, it can go county by county, city by city, town by town. The failure of congress to toughen background checks was not the final fight -- and it wasn't the final fight because it didn't change anyone's mind.<br />
<br />
"If you’re a suburban mom outside of Philadelphia who’s angry about this issue, just because it wasn’t on the floor of the Senate doesn’t mean you woke up and stopped caring about it," Jon Carson, executive director of Organizing for Action, a group formed from Pres. Obama's reelection campaign, told the <i>Washington Post</i>.<br />
<br />
Right now, the gun lobby and conservatives seem to believe they've won and put the gun control issue behind them. They are wrong.<br />
<br />
-Wisco</div>Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-7506027994424560252013-12-11T09:41:00.001-06:002013-12-11T09:41:43.166-06:00Is Paul Ryan's Deal Something Paul Ryan Can Support?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K1gNeHie7G4/UqiFT8zudYI/AAAAAAAAI4w/aQ1pN-zMNDo/s1600/pryan.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Ryan" border="0" height="239" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-K1gNeHie7G4/UqiFT8zudYI/AAAAAAAAI4w/aQ1pN-zMNDo/s400/pryan.jpg" title="Ryan" width="360" /></a></div>There are three things I can pretty much guarantee happened this morning; the sun came up, newspapers were delivered to doorsteps, and Paul Ryan wetted his finger and stuck it out the window, to see which way the Tea Party winds were blowing. After <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/192678-ryan-murray-to-announce-budget-deal" target="_blank" title="Budget deal is sealed">working out a budget deal</a> that takes a little bit of the bite out of the sequester, Rep. Ryan is likely measuring the pulse of his colleagues in his chamber -- and finding that pulse is a little more agitated by his deal than he might've hoped.<br />
<br />
Over at Business Insider, Brett <span data-scayt_word="LoGiurato" data-scaytid="7">LoGiurato</span> has an article up, the headline of which says it all: "<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/conservatives-budget-deal-paul-ryan-patty-murray-sequester-shutdown-2013-12?op=1" target="_blank" title="Conservatives Are Starting To Freak Out About The Budget Deal">Conservatives Are Starting To Freak Out About The Budget Deal</a>." The Heritage Foundation doesn't like it, the Tea Party doesn't like it... In short, the base hates it. A man who still reportedly harbors presidential ambitions, Paul Ryan has always tried to walk a fine line between seeming to be the moderate Republicans who can win a general election and the Tea Party extremist who can win Republican primaries. And in attempting this balancing act, he has largely failed. If there's on person you can count on to oppose a deal swung by Paul Ryan, <a href="http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/08/guess-who-stuck-a-knife-in-the-budget-deal.html" target="_blank" title="Guess Who Stuck a Knife in the Budget Deal?">it's Paul Ryan</a>. If the 'baggers hate it, he's going to hate it. Because, let's face it, winning the GOP primary is the first step in winning the White House. So it's first things first; make sure the <span data-scayt_word="rightwing" data-scaytid="179">rightwing</span> extremists are happy, then try to figure out how to explain it to everyone else later.<br />
<br />
And the extremists are unhappy.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/the_fools_are_at_it_again_conservatives_inane_new_budget_strategy/" target="_blank" title="The fools are at it again!: Conservatives' inane new budget strategy ">Brian <span data-scayt_word="Beutler" data-scaytid="229">Beutler</span></a>:</b> ...19 conservatives didn’t exactly say the deal should go down. But in a letter to House GOP leadership, they basically opposed the terms of the negotiation and pressed Speaker John Boehner to bring legislation to the floor that would undercut it.<br />
<br />
“[W]e encourage you to allow a vote as soon as practicable on a full-year ‘clean CR’ funding bill at the levels established in law by the Budget Control Act,” the letter reads. “Democrats are not interested in solving the problems created by the sequester: they are only interested in using the threat of the cuts as leverage to increase spending across the board, to increase our national debt, and to raise taxes and fees.”</i><br />
<br />
<br />
All of which brings up the specter of another government shutdown. I know the conventional wisdom is that Republicans have learned their lesson from the last one, but that argument fails on two important points:<br />
<br />
<ul><li> Republicans don't really do lesson learning. If they did, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell would not be the GOP leaders in their respective chambers today.</li>
<li> It ignores the fact that Republicans haven't really paid much of a price for the shutdown. Sure, their numbers crashed right after it. But the media turned their attention to the bungled Healthcare.gov rollout, knocking GOP shutdown stories off the front page. The religious extremist Tea Party types no doubt see the hand of God -- or at least the power of prayer -- in this, shielding them from the public's wrath and visiting it upon their most bitter enemy, <span data-scayt_word="Pres" data-scaytid="250">Pres</span>. Obama. If it happened once, it will probably happen again.</li>
</ul>I'll admit, the second point is offered with tongue in cheek -- but barely. I have no doubt that a big chunk of the 19 signatories believe this or something similar -- especially <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/rafael-cruz-declares-son-ted-cruz-anointed-" target="_blank" title="Rafael Cruz Declares Son Ted Cruz 'The Anointed One'"><span data-scayt_word="Dominionist" data-scaytid="271">Dominionist</span> messiah Ted Cruz</a>. And I have as little doubt that there are plenty in the House caucus that would be persuaded by this argument -- and plenty more who will go along just to pretend to be persuaded. The difference between a religious <span data-scayt_word="nutjob" data-scaytid="316">nutjob</span> and someone who's only pretending to be a religious <span data-scayt_word="nutjob" data-scaytid="335">nutjob</span> is pretty much nonexistent in a practical sense. And the 'baggers who aren't religious extremists are all phonies who pretend to be to win elections.<br />
<br />
So don't be surprised if this big bipartisan deal fizzles out under pressure from the House <span data-scayt_word="Wingnut" data-scaytid="416">Wingnut</span> Caucus. And don't be surprised if you see Paul Ryan turning the screws to up that pressure.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="433">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/8566890023/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Gage <span data-scayt_word="Skidmore" data-scaytid="447">Skidmore</span></i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-26258657753456491322013-12-10T09:53:00.001-06:002013-12-10T09:53:32.030-06:00With Plastic Gun Ban, Congress Votes to Kill a Cherished Gun Lobby Argument<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UksJ-gJKSkE/Uqc1VzrWH6I/AAAAAAAAI4U/dnl6rpgRylA/s1600/bannedgun.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UksJ-gJKSkE/Uqc1VzrWH6I/AAAAAAAAI4U/dnl6rpgRylA/s400/bannedgun.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>Bad news for the people who think the Second Amendment term "well-regulated" means "not to be regulated." A long-standing gun regulation will be formally renewed at the White House today, proving that even the Tea Party-dominated House of Representatives sees allowing certain weapons to be legally owned would be ridiculously and needlessly pro-criminal.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/09/senate-approves-gun-screening-bill-sends-to-obama/" target="_blank" title="Senate approves gun screening bill, sends to Obama">CNN</a>:</b> The Senate voted unanimously on Monday to renew a 10-year ban on guns that cannot be picked up by metal detectors commonly found in airports, court houses and government buildings.<br />
<br />
The law, which prohibits firearms made mostly of plastic, was set to expire at day's end. <br />
<br />
It had drawn renewed attention recently due to its pending expiration and the advent of mainly <span data-scayt_word="non-metalic" data-scaytid="1">non-metalic</span> handguns produced by 3-D printers.<br />
<br />
The House acted last week, and now the measure goes to President Barack Obama for his signature.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
In a world where bottles of shampoo are perceived as a serious danger of terrorism, an undetectable firearm ban was really a no-brainer. And the current guns <i>are</i> undetectable, despite a steel fig leaf designed to create a loophole in law. "Currently, plastic guns made using 3-D printers comply with the law by inserting a removable metal block," CNN reports. "That has led to worries plastic guns could pass through metal detectors without being flagged by simply removing the block."<br />
<br />
Of course, not everyone's happy. While the NRA has remained wisely mum on this common sense and noncontroversial ban, the more strident and extremist gun nuts haven't been as quiet.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-03/nra-stays-quiet-on-extending-ban-on-plastic-guns-in-u-s-.html" target="_blank" title="NRA Stays Quiet on Extending Ban on Plastic Guns in U.S.">Bloomberg News</a>:</b> Mike Hammond, legislative counsel for the Gun Owners of America, a gun-advocacy group in Springfield, Virginia, said the technology is now widely available, making a plastic-gun ban unnecessary.<br />
<br />
“The genie’s out of the bottle,” Hammond said.<br />
<br />
Individuals who intend to break the law will not be deterred by a ban on plastic materials, he said. “It’s stupid to think it would make any difference.”</i><br />
<br />
<br />
This "people will break the law anyway" argument has always struck me as the most logically weak of all gun lobby arguments -- so much so that it always catches me off guard when someone actually makes it to me. I find myself wondering if they're making it because they think I'm dumb and hope to trick me or if it's the fact that they're so dumb they can't see the obvious flaw.<br />
<br />
Hammond's argument can be made against any banned substance or controlled item, of course, from methamphetamine to improvised explosive devices. Laws against these things don't stop people from making them or using them, so by the gun lobby's argument, these things shouldn't be illegal at all. People should be allowed to cook and sell meth even in school zones and wear suicide bomb vests on passenger flights. The law doesn't make it impossible to do these things, so it's somehow absurd to suggest making them illegal.<br />
<br />
In fact, if we apply this reasoning universally, then rape, murder, and theft should all be totally legal, for the same reasons. The only laws congress should ever pass are those that are impossible to break -- no going faster than the speed of light! -- and, of course, those laws would be completely unnecessary.<br />
<br />
What laws banning substances and items do are to take dangerous people -- along with their contraband -- off the street and put them behind bars. When we find out someone's running a meth manufacturing operation, we can shut it down. When someone's planning to blow up a plane with an IUD, we can move in and stop them. These things happen all the time, proving the "law is powerless to stop it" argument is a bunch of fatalistic <span data-scayt_word="horsecrap" data-scaytid="47">horsecrap</span>. If we can't possibly stop people from breaking the law, how is it that we manage to do it over and over and over?<br />
<br />
And the big blow to the pro-guns-everywhere crowd in this law is that it proves that even many <span data-scayt_word="teabaggers" data-scaytid="50">teabaggers</span> in congress don't really believe this bad argument. Here we have a law banning a specific gun, passed because congress doesn't want people to be able to sneak a gun through a metal detector -- and obviously they believe that law can be used to prevent that. A vote against renewing the ban would be ridiculously pro-criminal, pro-terrorist, and pro-assassin. A vote for this ban is a vote for the fact that gun restrictions can reduce gun crimes.<br />
<br />
In short, it's a vote against the "gun laws can't stop criminals" argument.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the House GOP decided to cast their votes in the most cowardly way possible -- by a voice vote, so names <span data-scayt_word="wouldn" data-scaytid="127">wouldn</span>'t be attached to votes. The only way to know if a rep voted for or against the ban is to wait for them to tell you. And a lot of them won't, in large part because that vote proves one of their favorite arguments against gun control is a lie and that they don't actually believe it.<br />
<br />
So again we return to that question: when a Republican congress critter makes the "laws can't stop criminals" argument, are they lying or stupid? Given the way the plastic gun ban turned out, the odds lean toward "lying."<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="170">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://photoblog.statesman.com/the-liberator-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-handgun" target="_blank"><i>photo via Statesman.com</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-13296584521804227892013-12-03T09:43:00.001-06:002013-12-03T09:43:40.123-06:00The GOP's Obamacare Problem<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uaoBRkpuloI/Up35WjBbc4I/AAAAAAAAI2s/ADow4wcVM_s/s1600/Washington,_D.C._-_Tea_Bag_Protest.jpg" rel="lightbox" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Anti-Obamacare protesters" border="0" height="235" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uaoBRkpuloI/Up35WjBbc4I/AAAAAAAAI2s/ADow4wcVM_s/s400/Washington,_D.C._-_Tea_Bag_Protest.jpg" title="Anti-Obamacare protesters" width="360" /></a></div>It's being called the <span data-scayt_word="relaunch" data-scaytid="1">relaunch</span> of Healthcare.gov. But the fact that <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/obamacare-website-sign-ups-said-to-reach-100-000-in-month.html" target="_blank" title="Obamacare Website Sign-Ups Said to Reach 100,000 in Month">100,000 people signed up in October</a> -- while the headlines were filled with stories about how the website wasn't working -- suggests that "<span data-scayt_word="relaunch" data-scaytid="2">relaunch</span>" might not be the most accurate description. However, one aspect that's never actually gotten off the ground before was the effort to get Americans to sign up in large numbers. Since the website was hampered by capacity problems, an awareness campaign would've been counterproductive. In fact, until recently, the administration was discouraging organizations from running recruitment campaigns of their own.<br />
<br />
That's about to change.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i><b><a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/white-house-barack-obama-obamacare-affordable-care-act-100563.html" target="_blank" title="White House returns to Obamacare sales mode">Politico</a>:</b> President Barack Obama will launch a coordinated campaign Tuesday by the White House, congressional Democrats and their outside allies to return attention to why the Affordable Care Act passed in the first place.<br />
<br />
After two months of intense coverage of the botched HealthCare.gov rollout, the president will host a White House event kicking off a three-week drive to refocus the public on the law’s benefits, senior administration officials told POLITICO.<br />
<br />
The White House will take the lead in emphasizing a different benefit each day until the Dec. 23 enrollment deadline for Jan. 1 coverage. The daily message will be amplified through press events and social media by Democratic members of Congress, the Democratic National Committee, congressional campaign committees and advocacy organizations, officials said.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
And the <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="4">Obamacare</span> "<span data-scayt_word="trainwreck" data-scaytid="5">trainwreck</span>" that (according to pundits) dooms their 2014 prospects? Democrats are planning to run on it, not from it.<br />
<br />
"Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill say that in order to get back on offense on <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="6">Obamacare</span>, they have to draw a two-sided picture: Democrats delivering benefits on one side, and Republicans trying to deny them on the other," the report goes on. "That, one party operative said, is what polling says will help them win."<br />
<br />
Of course, Republicans have <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/02/obamacare-repeal-_n_4372544.html?1386006749" target="_blank" title="House Republicans Have 'No Plans' To Shut Down The Government Over Obamacare Again ">given up on repealing the Affordable Care Act</a>, but that's not something they're able to admit. The failure of the government shutdown to produce anything at all for Republicans has created a waves of anger and <span data-scayt_word="fingerpointing" data-scaytid="8">fingerpointing</span>, resulting in destructive primary challenges across the country. One longtime Republican operative, Richard <span data-scayt_word="Viguerie" data-scaytid="9">Viguerie</span>, predicted that the GOP <span data-scayt_word="pirmaries" data-scaytid="10">primaries</span> will be an "<a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/viguerie-republican-primary-conservatives/2013/10/22/id/532522" target="_blank" title="Viguerie Predicts 'Absolute' Bloodbath in 2014 GOP Primaries">absolute bloodbath</a>."<br />
<br />
"We <span data-scayt_word="gotta" data-scaytid="15">gotta</span> give up on <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="11">Obamacare</span>!" will <i>not</i> be a winning message during Tea Party-driven bloodbath. They'll have to try to out-crazy each other on the issue. That's a real problem for them in the general election. Since Republicans have no alternative to <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="12">Obamacare</span>, they wind up advocating the unsustainable <span data-scayt_word="pre-ACA" data-scaytid="18">pre-ACA</span> status quo by default. And it may be that the only thing more unpopular than the reformed healthcare system is the unreformed one. Republicans would be better off putting this issue behind them. In reality, they have -- but <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/12/02/erick_erickson_demands_republicans_sabotage_obamacare/" target="_blank" title="Erick Erickson demands Republicans sabotage Obamacare">reality doesn't play with the base</a>, so they're forced to pretend that they haven't.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/12/03/the-morning-plum-dems-try-going-on-offense-on-obamacare/" target="_blank" title="Dems try going on offense on Obamacare">Greg <span data-scayt_word="Sargent" data-scaytid="19">Sargent</span> argues</a> that "folks are overlooking the possibility that no matter how unpopular the law, the <i>Republican stance on health care may prove a liability, too</i>. The basic Dem gamble is that disapproval of <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="20">Obamacare</span> does not automatically translate into zero sum political gains for Republicans, and that voters will grasp that one side is trying to solve our health care problems, while the other is trying to sabotage all solutions while advancing no constructive answers of their own. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/26/gop-pollster-americans-disapprove-of-obamacare-but-they-dont-support-defunding-it/">Polling</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/11/27/morning-plum-republicans-are-absolutely-certain-obamacare-has-already-failed/">shows</a> disapproval of the law does not translate into majority support for GOP attempts to repeal or sabotage it, and <span data-scayt_word="Dems" data-scaytid="22">Dems</span> think this will only harden as more people enjoy the law’s benefits."<br />
<br />
And even if they don't improve, if things stay exactly the way they are now, Republicans lose the <span data-scayt_word="Obamacare" data-scaytid="23">Obamacare</span> issue. Since most people don't want repeal -- and didn't while even the most critical Healthcare.gov stories blared from the media -- Republicans are already on a bad footing on the issue. And they have been for months, having become a mostly single-issue party with over forty bills to repeal the Affordable Care Act passed in the House.<br />
<br />
The Affordable Care Act won't be a winning issue for the GOP. Whether it will be for Democrats remains to be seen. But if anyone has the upper hand on the issue right now, it's not Republicans.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="54">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Washington,_D.C._-_Tea_Bag_Protest.jpg" target="_blank"><i>photo via <span data-scayt_word="Wikimedia" data-scaytid="55">Wikimedia</span> Commons</i></a>] Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2902050169466194986.post-60502479409956927762013-12-02T10:03:00.001-06:002013-12-02T10:03:24.310-06:00America Needs a Raise<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cp36PLKX5-8/UpyrMHsZVaI/AAAAAAAAI2Q/3MlCD5EAuvE/s1600/nonunion.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="Sign mocking Walmart's low wages" border="0" height="186" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cp36PLKX5-8/UpyrMHsZVaI/AAAAAAAAI2Q/3MlCD5EAuvE/s400/nonunion.jpg" title="Sign mocking Walmart's low wages" width="360" /></a></div>For me at least, the most interesting story over the holiday weekend was Black Friday mayhem. Running the search term "Walmart Police" through Google News gained me <a href="http://quickhits.tumblr.com/post/68480588454" target="_blank" title="Google News 'Walmart Police'">this little screenshot</a>, which I think sums up the spirit of the day pretty well -- people shot, stabbed, and beaten over prices that are really no better than those in any other sale throughout the year. False scarcity and media hype about "can't-miss" deals can drive people to do things they may not be very proud of in the sober light of Cyber Monday. Our consumerist culture is by nature predatory, with the corporate predators tricking the prey into thinking they're predators too -- which leads to predictable outcomes as consumers compete to "hunt bargains."<br />
<br />
Another type of corporate predation was also in the news, as Walmart workers <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/11/29/breaking_activists_arrested_in_virginia_at_one_of_1500_planned_wal_mart_protests/" target="_blank" title="Breaking: Activists arrested in Virginia at one of 1,500 planned Wal-Mart protests">staged Black Friday demonstrations</a> to protest low wages. They're starvation wages, really, which have Walmart employees <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/walmart-food-drive_n_4296618.html" target="_blank" title="Walmart Store Holding Thanksgiving Food Drive For Its Own Workers">running food drives</a> for each other and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html" target="_blank" title="Walmart Is One Of The Biggest Beneficiaries Of Food Stamps">relying on food stamps</a> to survive. What's surprising to me is how little bleed-over there is from one story to the other, despite the fact that they're clearly related. Not only do Walmart workers earn far, far too little for their labor, but the Black Friday chaos stories demonstrate just how lousy a working environment the company's willing to tolerate in order to sell someone a toaster oven. Anyone who can read about the <a href="http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2013/11/29/1129-Fights-store-evacuation-mar-holiday-shopping-rush.html" target="_blank" title="Fights, store evacuation mar holiday shopping rush">Black Friday frenzies</a> across the nation and think that people who have to deal with that don't deserve a raise... Well, they've got a real interesting definition of "deserve."<br />
<br />
And of course, the myth that low wage workers have undemanding, cushy jobs is exposed as BS.<br />
<br />
All of which brings us to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/02/opinion/krugman-better-pay-now.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0" target="_blank" title="Better Pay Now">Paul <span data-scayt_word="Krugman's" data-scaytid="14">Krugman's</span> call to raise the minimum wage</a> -- and more.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>The last few decades have been tough for many American workers, but especially hard on those employed in retail trade — a category that includes both the sales clerks at your local Walmart and the staff at your local McDonald’s. Despite the lingering effects of the financial crisis, America is a much richer country than it was 40 years ago. But the inflation-adjusted wages of <span data-scayt_word="nonsupervisory" data-scaytid="23">nonsupervisory</span> workers in retail trade — who weren’t particularly well paid to begin with — <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/wreck-the-malls/" title="Blog post">have fallen</a> almost 30 percent since 1973.<<br />
<br />
So can anything be done to <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/dec/06/alan-grayson/alan-grayson-says-more-walmart-employees-medicaid-/" title="Politifact, on Medicaid and food stamps">help these workers</a>, many of whom depend on food stamps — if they can get them — to feed their families, and who depend on Medicaid — again, if they can get it — to provide essential health care? Yes. We can preserve and expand food stamps, not slash the program the way Republicans want. We can make health reform work, despite right-wing efforts to undermine the program.<br />
<br />
And we can raise the minimum wage.</i><br />
<br />
<br />
A realistic minimum wage and a working social safety net. What a shocking idea. Conservatives love bootstrap stories, but the math -- like all <span data-scayt_word="rightwing" data-scaytid="26">rightwing</span> math -- simply doesn't work. Sure, a worker can work hard and become a supervisor, manager, or more, but how many middle management employees do conservatives think a company needs? Not everyone can follow that path -- even if <i>everyone</i> at a particular store is deserving. People are going to remain in low wage positions by necessity. It's simply unavoidable. <i>Every</i> employee at any given Walmart can't be a floor manager. Someone has to be on the operating end of a mop. In any case, living on the minimum wage shouldn't be a punishment for failing to live up to Republican expectations.<br />
<br />
And raising the minimum wage is good for everyone. <br />
<br />
<br />
<i>When it comes to the minimum wage, however, we have a number of cases in which a state raised its own minimum wage while a neighboring state did not. If there were anything to the notion that minimum wage increases have big negative effects on employment, that result should show up in state-to-state comparisons. It doesn’t.<br />
<br />
So a minimum-wage increase would help low-paid workers, with few adverse side effects. And we’re talking about a lot of people. Early this year the Economic Policy Institute estimated that an increase in the national minimum wage to $10.10 from its current $7.25 would benefit 30 million workers. Most would benefit directly, because they are currently earning less than $10.10 an hour, but others would benefit indirectly, because their pay is in effect pegged to the minimum — for example, fast-food store managers who are paid slightly (but only slightly) more than the workers they manage. </i><br />
<br />
<br />
This is the principle of "everybody does better when everybody does better" -- something obvious to most people, but shocking and anti-intuitive to conservatives. And that get's back to the idea of punishment. Conservatives, at heart, believe that everyone is evil. Therefore conservative ideas are always about punishment. If you punish women for having sex by calling them "sluts," they won't have abortions. If you punish schools for underperforming by pulling funding. If you punish the poor for their poverty by saddling them with an unlivable minimum wage, while cutting programs that would help them -- like food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare -- then they'll just decide it's too hard to be poor and stop it.<br />
<br />
This doesn't work at all and why should it? It's what the status quo was before the minimum wage or support programs were put in place. Want a glimpse of how well the Republican approach to poverty works? Pick up a Dickens novel. All those crazy, big <span data-scayt_word="gummint" data-scaytid="154">gummint</span> ideas exist to <i>fix</i> the failures of a society that lived by what would be modern conservative social Darwinist rules. That's how we know that conservative economic principles would fail -- we've already tried it. For centuries. The poor had plenty of time to get sick of poverty and knock it off. Somehow, they never really managed. Poverty was rampant, income levels were pretty much fixed, and the phrase "middle class" was incomprehensible babble.<br />
<br />
People are being underpaid to work in terrible conditions. History proves that doing something about that helps everyone. And that doing nothing will just make things progressively worse.<br />
<br />
<span data-scayt_word="-Wisco" data-scaytid="227">-Wisco</span><br />
<br />
[<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/walmartmovie/22356522/" target="_blank"><i>photo by Brave New Films</i></a>]Wiscohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12013881728915462943noreply@blogger.com0