Kyra at the Moment

Life Happened...

2011-03-12T13:15:00.000-08:00

No, I have not fallen off the face of the earth nor have I stopped blogging. Life has a habit of happening, even if you've made other plans, and I have gone through significant changes in my life in the past couple of months.

As most of you are aware, I have been looking for a "real" job that will help pay the bills. Much as writing feeds my soul, it doesn't do much for the bank account, unfortunately. My two novels are far from ready to submit for publication, and I believe that it is important to be on top of the news of the day if I am going to blog.

To my great relief, I now have a job. Time clock, paycheck, and everything. Sadly, it's not full-time, yet, however, as soon as the census increases, so will my hours. Ironically, I am working at a place that I have never applied to. A little frustrating considering how many resumes and applications I have sent out over the past couple of years! I've been on the internet job sites and frequently received inquiries from companies interested in my business background, but none from places that would allow me to work in my profession. Then out of the blue, I get a phone call from a company who saw my resume and asked me to come in for an interview. Several interviews later, and a couple of months beyond what I might have expected (and so had written them off), I get a call asking me to start work in 2 days. Needless to say, I frantically got myself together, rescheduled appointments, and went to work. My "part-time" job was actually full-time until last week as I was in training and helping cover a workload shortage, but hopefully within a couple of months, I will work full-time for real.

My hours are insane (I have to get up at 3am to arrive on time) and then I got sick, so slept all the hours I was not actually working. It is just this past week that I have started to adjust physically, to the point that I feel human this weekend for the first time in forever, it seems.

So, I'm back on board. I have kept up with the news and had several posts going in my mind, but the news changed so fast and was, quite frankly, overwhelming in the complexity and variety of subjects to write about that I decided to wait until I could give my posts my full attention.

Right now, I am following the situation in Wisconsin, Japan, and the related damage to coastal California and other locations. Every time I think John Boehner can't say anything stupider, he opens his mouth and proves me wrong. Sarah Palin disappeared, briefly, but is back ensuring that we all remember how truly ignorant and classless she really is. Gabrielle Giffords is healing remarkably and I am in awe as I compare her to other patients I have worked with who experienced a traumatic brain injury. I am beginning to wonder if there was some grand, Democratic scheme to let the Republicans have the House at the mid-terms to ensure a resounding victory in 2012 for the Democrats and the President. If not, they (Republicans) are certainly behaving as if they hope to lose in 2012.

I have heard from some of you, and periodically receive comments written months ago, likely the result of a Google search. What are you talking about today? What's at the top of your list for discussion? How do you feel about Sarah Palin's latest comments? The actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin? Any other items in the news that need some additional commentary?

Let me know and I will be blogging again.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Jarod Loughner IS A Schizophrenic With Paranoid Tendencies, And Sarah Palin? Fail.

2011-01-12T13:23:00.000-08:00

I've been saying, since the horrific events of last Saturday, that it was too soon to characterize the shooter as having schizophrenia with paranoid tendencies. While I have also said it is likely that mental illness is involved, no one could actually diagnose without actually speaking with the shooter. I was in error, however, in stating that no reputable mental health professional would diagnose without more information and direct contact with the subject. Dr. E. Fuller Torrey has made that diagnosis and claims that he has sufficient information from the limited writings and YouTube videos available. He also noted the flattened affect displayed in the photo that we have all seen, which I thought was a pretty big signal of schizophrenia (one of the features that we look for is inappropriate affect - smiling at the wrong time for example). I am pleased that one of the leading experts on schizophrenia validates my opinion that it is only a tiny percentage of persons with that illness who exhibit violent tendencies, and his agreement that it is past behavior and substance abuse that are more likely indicators. What Dr. E. Fuller Torrey explains, is that it is the content of the delusions that is important in someone with schizophrenia, in this case, the paranoia. Dr. Torrey says that Saturday's shooter is a "textbook case" of paranoid schizophrenia (the formal diagnosis would be schizophrenia, paranoid type, and then what type of paranoia). This doctor knows far more than I ever will on the subject, so I defer to his judgment.

When interviewing someone who has delusions, and claims to hear voices, the first question I ask, is "what do the voices say?" Command hallucinations, as we call them, are those in which the 'voices' tell the individual to do something. Frequently, someone with hallucinations that involve hearing voices will describe conversations going on in their head that are 'about' them or 'to' them, usually in ways that diminish self-esteem, but a 'command' hallucination is dangerous in that the only way the individual has to make it stop, is to follow through with the commands given. Any mental health professional encountering someone with command hallucinations will immediately take notice and seek to determine what the commands say. One of the very few instances in which we can break confidentiality, is when the individual is a danger to themselves of to others whom we can identify. Someone with paranoid features to their schizophrenia and who is in an active phase, will have delusions that include the idea that others are trying to do something to them (insert thoughts into their brain, listen to their thoughts, or control them in some way). Evidently, Jarod Loughner believed that the government was trying to control his grammar--a quite unusual fear and definitely evidence of paranoia.

What is very sad about this whole incident, is that it shines a light on the lack of mental health care in this country. Several Republicans in the past couple of days have stated, quite strongly, that the problem is not political rhetoric, but rather the lack of mental health care. I am puzzled by these comments as they are in complete contrast to the Republican desire to repeal the current health care legislation, and mental health care is one of those dreaded social services that conservatives love to deride. Perhaps after this, they will re-think their derision of government-funded health care.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This morning, Sarah Palin released a video with her statement regarding the blame that seems to have attached to her since Saturday's shootings. She says that she has spent the past few days in reflection, and we are given to understand that she is releasing this statement in response to her puzzlement at the (unstated) left's desire to "apportion blame." Not wanting to accept any blame, she makes this video. You'll note that she has chosen to appear in a dark blazer, a flag pin that is not her usual crystal embellished pin, and in front of a fireplace (read "Fireside Chat"). Very presidential. It is clear that she has either read my posts on her body language or finally begun to listen to her advisors as her poll numbers drop as she rarely displayed her usual "tells" to give away her complete disdain for having to give this speech. Had not the intertubes and Twitter not been full of comments about her deafening silence, I am sure that she would remain silent still. What is remarkable about the following comments, is that, as said by many others, she missed an opportunity to appear bigger than she is, presidential even. If she has been watching the cable shows other than Fox, she would have taken note of the many pieces of advice about what she should do, what she should say, and what would immediately dilute all the negative reaction that she has been getting. Obviously, she did not.

I agree that Saturday's events are not directly her fault, but I do believe that she is one of those holding primary responsibility--the others being Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck--for the level of vitriol that passes for politics today in this country. Whether or not politics has anything to do with Saturday's events has not been determined, however, it has been determined that Loughner hated Congresswoman Giffords and that she was his primary target. How can the attempted assassination of a political figure not be political?

"Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims' families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic's core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It's inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
Like many, I've spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event. [And it took her three days for her scriptwriters to come up with something for her to say to undo her first, unscripted remarks and to counter the blow-back from Glenn Beck's reading of purported emails from her] President Reagan said, "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." [Unfortunately, while he did say these words, the context was that he was arguing against providing any social services to the inner cities] Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, [Although the left does not use maps with gun sights accompanied by her favorite slogan, "Don't retreat--reload"] not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election. [And just because something is legal means of course, that it is the right thing to do]
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country's future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. [well, not exactly] In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power [?!? transition of power? sorry hon, just the House, so not really a 'true' transition of power] proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. [Which I have abused by telling lies] And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible. [What is reprehensible is using a term 'blood libel' that has a very specific history in Judaism and is offensive when the primary victim on Saturday, Congresswoman Giffords, is Jewish. And manufacture? Just the word is incendiary in itself, connoting as it does conspiracy on the part of (whom?) to stir things up] [And once again, she contradicts herself in the same paragraph. First, the crime stands on its own, then somehow, speech can 'incite blood libel?']
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. [?] And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those "calm days" when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren't designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders' genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure. [So you have no desire for an ideal world? If so, you would have stopped the hateful comments shouted out during your campaign rallies as John McCain did, or at least noted their inappropriateness in civil, albeit heated, political debate. And this level of rhetoric? It is unique as never before have we had a television station devoted 24/7 to promulgating lies in aid of a political party and ideology. You clearly do not believe your own words, that the crime stands on its own as you regularly claimed that then Senator Obama "palled around with terrorists" and tried (and still do) to claim guilt by association for all your opponents]
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, "We know violence isn't the answer. When we 'take up our arms', we're talking about our vote." [Funny, this was when your gunsight map generated controversy and Congresswoman Giffords went on MSNBC to tell you that words have consequences. Just sayin] Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box - as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That's who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn't a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults. [Oh wow. This, from the Queen of Thin Skin! But I forgot, in Sarahworld, the 1st Amendment is about protecting her and political figures FROM the press, so muzzling the voices that call her to account is okay, but limiting hate speech is not?]
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply "symbolic," as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred [No Sarah. It is not 'sacred.' This is a secular country and our founding documents are not sacred.] charter of liberty was more than just "symbolic." But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.
It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today. [Hmmm. Where were you when all the members of your party sat on their hands as Bush and Cheney raped the Constitution?]
Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God's guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. [Would that it were mindless] We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.
- Sarah Palin"

My takeaway from all of this, is that once again, it is all about Sarah. Were she not vilified in the "liberal" press for her (granted, small) part in all of this, we know that she would have injected herself into the conversation anyway (and likely much sooner). She could have, as so many have said, taken the high road and apologized for the inappropriateness of her gunsight map (especially as Congresswoman Giffords herself commented on it at the time of its release and was concerned) and done so while still saying that she was not at fault. I don't think I have heard anyone blame Sarah Palin directly for Saturday's events and it is impossible to form direct cause-effect links, however, just the fact that she found it necessary to 1) have the website taken down immediately, 2) have her mouthpiece try to claim that the symbols on the map were surveying marks rather than gunsights (when she talked constantly about reloading and asked people to go see the map?), and 3) had the email exchange with Glenn Beck in which she complained about people using this as a reason to criticize her suggests that she knows she bears some responsibility for the level of hate present in this country today. The fact that politics has always been heated and that this was nothing new (although I disagree) does not mean that she shouldn't use her position to attempt to improve things.We will always have people on the extreme fringes of our society, people vulnerable to suggestion, whose locus of control is external so looking for someone to blame for their problems. Providing them the trigger to act is the height of irresponsibility and not in the least presidential.

No, as usual, Sarah Palin had to play the victim once again, make this about her, and try to turn it into a political opportunity. The one thing I am confident of, is that in this she has failed.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Violence Does Not Automatically Equate to Schizophrenia

2011-01-10T15:58:00.000-08:00

It's likely that the shooter of Saturday has a mental illness. It is even possible that he has schizophrenia, possibly with paranoid features. But, there is no evidence that he has ever received that diagnosis and if he has, it would be illegal for any medical professional to say so.

Actually, the first medical professional to speak to the subject of the subject's mental health is Rand Paul, the self-certified ophthalmologist recently elected to the Senate. He stated on Sunday morning that he had seen the shooter's writings and determined that he was a paranoid schizophrenic. First, not likely, second, get real.

If the legal community in Tucson had possession of the shooter's writings, it is unlikely that a junior Senator from another state would have had access to them. Even a mental health professional would be unwilling and/or unlikely to make a formal diagnosis without assessing the individual (and at that point, the shooter was not talking to law enforcement), and if they were willing to make a guess, would not couch it in those terms. If they did guess, they would use the appropriate, current, terminology which is not paranoid schizophrenic. If anyone has had access to any writings, it is certain that no diagnosis would have been made by Sunday morning from them alone.

It is too bad that mental health is a subject that continues to carry such a huge stigma in this country. People who are experiencing a mental illness are often unwilling or unable to seek help because of this stigma. Often times, families are unwilling to recognize the need, or unable to afford treatment. In homes with high religiosity in particular, the need for intervention is often denied. Just pray it away, in other words.

During the recent economic downturns, local mental health facilities have seen their budgets decimated. I reached a point in which my clients could only be seen at the County Mental Health for medication if they had a formal diagnosis of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Never mind that the most dangerous disorder (to my clients) was depression. At one time, I had six clients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Each had some tendencies towards paranoia, however, they were able to function, to a point. Not one was violent, and studies show that even at the height of a delusional phase, most persons with schizophrenia do not have violent tendencies. Our biggest risk for violence is for persons under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. Of course, six clients is not enough to be representative of anything, however, there are numerous studies and meta-analyses that will bear this out.

I am sure that as the days unfold, that we will discover more and more about the young man who shot the Congresswoman and others. I just think we need to step back before we make statements of fact before we know them. What we do know, is that we can be certain that this was politically motivated (law enforcement has said that they have evidence that Congresswoman Giffords was the target) although we have no idea if the shooter was a member of any group or party. My bias is that he was probably a right-wing extremist or at least attracted to that rhetoric, mainly because I have yet to hear a progressive or a Democrat use gun imagery or language, or suggest that their opponents should die, or have their followers show up at events wearing guns. Just sayin.

What do you think?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATED: Sarah Palin Can Now Check Off One Of The Gun Sights On Her Map

2011-01-08T13:16:00.000-08:00

As of this time, Congresswoman Giffords of Arizona is out of surgery and doctors are "very optimistic" for her recovery as she was communicating with her medical team. A nine-year-old child has died, as well as a federal judge. According to the Sheriff's Department, a total of 18 people were injured in the shooting this morning at a constituent meeting event held by Congresswoman Giffords.

It should be noted, that Sarah Palin and others on Fox News should reserve their false condolences, particularly as this image and similar comments have been, immediately, removed from websites.

Image: Courtesy of SarahPAC

Please note the 4th name on the left-hand column.

On her Facebook page, Sarah Palin said of the shooting, [emphasis added]

"My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona. On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

This image may have been removed from her website, however, it should be distributed thoroughly around the web so that anyone who may have missed it, see it.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE:

Congresswoman Giffords opponent placed this ad prior to the election:

Back to Work & Looking Forward

2011-01-05T17:42:00.000-08:00

Image: 38minutes

I apologize for the absence of any new posts for a couple of weeks. I hope that you all had a wonderful holiday and managed to get where you wanted to go and survive any weather in the process.

I was traveling, by car, and my 3G network was more often 1G in remote areas where I spent most of my time. I found that often, high-speed wireless offered in hotels is more like dial-up, so my ability to access the net was severely limited.

So, we start a new year and a new Congress. I think we are in for some truly interesting times and I look forward to continued discussions of the antics of Sarah Palin, the Republicans, and the punditry and villagers who try to tell us what to think.

I was struck yesterday by a comment made by Michele Bachmann in which she said (and I paraphrase) that the classes that she was organizing for the House to teach them the Constitution would enhance their purpose, which was to learn and study the Constitution each week while in session. Funny. I would expect that my representatives already have a good understanding of the Constitution and quite frankly, their purpose is not to learn and study the Constitution, but rather to apply it. Their job is to legislate, which means write law. Period.

Justice Scalia is in the news today for his comments about the Constitution, particularly his thoughts on the equality of women (not in the Constitution in his opinion). He is noted for saying that being a justice is easy, because the Constitution is so easy to understand and apply. Makes me wonder why we need him.

Keith Olbermann noted on his show tonight that progressives are actually quite pleased that the Republicans have decided to read the Constitution into the Congressional Record. Perhaps by reading it out loud, they will discover those amendments that they try to ignore (or perhaps do not even know) and also discover where they are wrong.

Still trying to get caught up so may be a little light on the posts for a bit, but I'm sure there will be no shortage of topics to discuss.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Study Shows Fox Viewers Most Likely to Believe Misinformation

2010-12-17T18:11:00.000-08:00

This may not be a surprise to anyone, but I appreciate when scientific studies support what I have always thought to be true. A study recently completed by World Public Opinion based at the University of Maryland found that voters are misinformed at a substantial level and that Fox News viewers in particular, are most likely to believe misinformation. After the Citizens United decision which enabled corporate contributions to political campaigns to increase, the researchers wanted to discover whether the level of misinformation disseminated to voters had increased and if so, whether or not it was effective (to be effective, it must be believed).

Image: jugbo

Some of the results are remarkable. I know that I stopped watching network broadcasts because most of what I was hearing was either incorrect, incomplete, or slanted in favor of the Republicans, but unless people are willing to devote a lot of time to the quest for information, cable or network news is probably their best best for political news. Using data gathered by government agencies who are generally believed to be non-partisan, questions about issues of the day were asked.

A few findings include:

Though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concluded that the stimulus legislation has saved or created 2.0-5.2 million jobs, only 8% of voters thought most economists who had studied it concluded that the stimulus legislation had created or saved several million jobs. Most (68%) believed that economists estimate that it only created or saved a few jobs and 20% even believed that it resulted in job losses.
Though the CBO concluded that the health reform law would reduce the budget deficit, 53% of voters thought most economists have concluded that health reform will increase the deficit.
Though the Department of Commerce says that the US economy began to recover from recession in the third quarter of 2009 and has continued to grow since then, only 44% of voters thought the economy is starting to recover, while 55% thought the economy is still getting worse.
Though the National Academy of Sciences has concluded that climate change is occurring, 45% of voters thought most scientists think climate change is not occurring (12%) or that scientists are evenly divided (33%).

For people who watched Fox News, the results were to be expected. They were:

12 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill caused job losses
31 points more likely to believe that the health care law would worsen the deficit
26 points more likely to believe that the economy is getting worse
30 points more likely to believe that there is no climate change occurring
14 points more likely to believe that the stimulus bill did not contain any tax cuts
14 points more likely to believe that their own income taxes have increased [we actually paid the lowest amount in 60 years]
13 points more likely to believe that the auto bailout was an Obama initiative
12 points more likely to believe that most of the Republicans were against TARP
31 points more likely to believe that Obama was not born in the U.S.

The most remarkable point above, is not the distance between what a Fox News viewer is likely to believe compared to someone who receives their news from other sources, but that party identification did not seem to matter. Democrats were just as likely to believe misinformation if they were regular Fox viewers.

When the results of this study were released, Fox News senior vice president for news Michael Clemente responded by stating that the University of Maryland was highly ranked as a school for Students Who Study the Least, and being the Best Party School (it is actually one of the highest ranked state universities in the east) and therefore, "...given these fine academic distinctions, we’ll regard the study with the same level of veracity it was ‘researched’ with..." It should be noted, that rather than dispute the findings of the study, Fox chose to attack the study itself. This is a classic strawman fallacy as Clemente creates something to attack to deflect attention from the issue.

I see as I finish this that Countdown did a segment on this report and I've seen a few tweets about it, but the whole article is well worth a read. I didn't think it would get this much attention or I would probably not have written this, but it's nice to have something I've believed validated by scientific research.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Imagine. Enjoy

2010-12-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

A moment of Zen. Enjoy.

Liz Cheney Demands President Do...What He Is Doing

2010-12-05T21:44:00.000-08:00

Liz, Liz, Liz. Every time you go on the Sunday talks, you say something breathtakingly stupid and I get to write another post suggesting, again, that you give it up and go home. I have no idea why you are given air time, but considering the state of news in this country -- and I mean the networks as well as Fox -- there is not much useful said on Sunday mornings (or weekday evenings for that matter). I have studied, among other things, history, political science, economics, psychology, all of the schools, theories, and techniques of counseling, am considered a qualified witness on the ADA, and followed politics in this country since Richard Nixon. I was even a Navy wife. Do I feel qualified to judge President Obama's decisions on Afghanistan? I believe I have as much education and experience in the work world as you (we were both mid-level managers of comparably sized units in the public sector), plus I was actually a military wife. But, no. I have an opinion rooted in my pacifism, but if I were invited to appear on a talk show to discuss defense policy, I would have to respectfully decline. Nor am I qualified to discuss decisions made in my father's field despite many, many dinner-table conversations. But, you've learned how to make a living trying to whitewash your father's history, so I am sure you will continue to present yourself as a foreign policy, terrorism expert.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday today, you inserted both feet into your mouth when you angrily demanded that President Obama do exactly...what he is doing.

After giving your oh so thoughtful approval for his visit to the troops, you said: [emphasis added]

"You know, what I'd like to see-because I do believe that setting the 2011 deadline did cause significant damage to the effort, in terms of convincing people that we're committed to be there to win-I'd like to see the president repudiate it. I'd like to see him say, "Just let's be clear: We are going to make our decisions based on conditions on the ground, not based on dates we set back here in Washington."

"...It's important for the Pakistanis to hear that as well, so that they understand it is not in their interest at all to help to support, provide safe havens to the extent that the Taliban has safe havens in Pakistan. That message is a critically important one, and I'd like to see the president say "conditions-based," not just "deadline set."

What is interesting, is that although I personally would prefer that the President bring the troops home, I understand that he is trying to clean up your father's messes. Typical of the extremist right, you have just plucked words out of the air to create an argument, the support for your argument, and the necessary actions to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

On August 31, 2010, President Obama gave a speech in which he said: [emphasis added]

"... next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin-because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

Discussing the additional troops that he was sending, he said: [emphasis added]

"...these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

I think most of us would like all of the troops to come home, and the money that is being spent instead go to restore social programs here in this country and pay back the debt incurred by your father and George W. But, your father wanted war and along with W, ignored Bin Laden to go settle a grudge and start a war that had been planned since the early 1990's. Then, realizing their mistake, moved into Afghanistan and tried to solve the problems that we created. So you don't like how things are going? Neither do I. But next time, pay attention before opening your mouth. You look foolish.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon. (h/t Media Matters)
k

Me, Me, Me! It's All About Me! Look At Me! Me!

2010-12-01T14:37:00.000-08:00

If this were a television show, the ratings would be huge, we'd all make sure we were sitting there on our Barcaloungers each week, popcorn in hand, waiting for the next episode of the Sarah Palin Me, Me, Me show. Everything out of her mouth contradicts not only what she said a day, week, month, or year before, but often contradicts what she has said several sentences before. Unfortunately for all of us, it is not a television show. This is our life as we watch our country disintegrate around us and the ignorant folk who have previously always felt somewhat ashamed of their high school or community college only education, or lack of a high-powered, important career, can now wave signs and be somebody because, hey, ignorance is cool!

Please don't get me wrong. I have nothing against people without advanced degrees or any degree at all for that matter. In fact, I was that person with a GED and some college who managed to rise to a mid-level management job, then take those skills and run two successful small businesses for a number of years before I was finally able to attend college and get through graduate school. It would have been better had I led a more conventional life as I have discovered in this economy that most employers consider self-employment for women worthless, and when offered young brand new graduates without experience or older brand new graduates with all kinds of experience but not a lot in their new field, they invariably pick the young ones. Whatever. My point, is that I am not including myself in any particular group, but I am comfortable saying that many people--including, I would imagine, many Palin supporters--are secretly jealous of those who were able to attend really good schools, earn professional degrees, and privately ashamed that they don't understand all of the nuances of economics, foreign affairs, or even national or state politics because of their lack of education. That particular attitude drives me crazy, because people psych themselves out of learning these things because of their lack of formal education. I have been involved in politics for years, and well understood nuance because I took the trouble to educate myself about issues I cared about.

Then, along comes someone like Sarah Palin. Out for the main chance, angry at the world (why, we don't know), who somehow manages to be in the right place at the right time. Defensive because she is put in a position of looking ignorant (and excuse me, a governor who climbs on a state airplane to fly to a conference or meeting and takes as her reading matter a People magazine rather than a briefing book has no excuse) and exhibits her one strong talent. Turning her negatives into positives and convincing people with a wink and a sparkle, a twitch of the mini, that up is down and left is right. One wonders what she will do when plastic surgery is, inevitably, no longer an option? Her appeal is emotional, not logical, and thus extremely difficult to counteract.

The funny thing about emotions and feelings is that they don't always make sense. We've been taught to understand that feelings don't have to make sense, they just are. This is true, but a bit simplistic. Depression just "is," as is anger, fear, and in some, paranoia and panic. Sure, there are often reasons, but not always reasons that we can understand. These are all emotions that are natural and normal, part of the human condition, but can also be destructive if they interfere with the function of everyday life. Fortunately, we know how to treat these feelings and help people manage them in such a way as to live a better life. That said, because we understand how to help people manage them, we also know how to manipulate them. Great salespeople learn how to work their contact to close the deal, and believe me, psychology is integral to the workings of a good salesperson. Politicians learn how to discover what people want, and make sure they say what people want to hear. If you listen carefully, most pols rarely actually answer a question, but rather answer something else that will get out the message that is important to them in that moment in time. People trained to receive information in short bursts but who have not been trained to be critical thinkers, will often, especially if they like the politician, feel as if someone is finally listening to them.Their good impression of the speaker is reinforced because, hey, they listened to me, they answered me, they care about me.

When we make a decision based on emotion, it is not usually a good one, but it is always a decision that we become attached to on a personal level, so let go of with difficulty. Sarah Palin works these emotions to bring people to her side, and keep them there. Her use of Facebook notes to communicate her rants--and that's what they are--allows her followers to feel as if they are part of something because they can comment. The fact that negative comments are deleted immediately tells those whose comments are retained that they have been approved for membership into this club, which reinforces their belief that if they are special, then she is special. It is a mutual admiration society that unfortunately, is one-sided. Sarah Palin does not care about her followers. They are useful to her, but if she truly cared, then she would be concerned about actually making their lives better.

How do I know that she does not care about making their lives better? Her record. It's not secret. She left her job of mayor with the town millions of dollars further in debt than when she started. She had barely been elected when she spent $50,000 to redecorate her office (and she claims to love second-hand clothes). As governor, when villagers were having to make choices between food or freezing to death, rather than declare an emergency, she took them cookies (and took the cookies to a different village so that she would not have to actually face those who were desperate). Rather than focus on the job of governing, she spent her time retaliating against those who bad-mouthed her. Journalists who asked her basic questions, that should be expected for anyone running for office, especially national office, were accused of attacking her and she retains that vendetta to this day.

Most disturbing, is that in the rise of the astroturfed tea-party movement, she caters to their anti-government mood by deriding the government--especially the President--at every opportunity. Never mind that she has nothing useful to contribute, every event must receive a comment from her. Every action taken by the President receives a "gentle" chiding on what he should have done or what she would have done in his place. In her latest book, "America By Heart," she tells people that everyone needs a "First Dude." She says that had they won the 2008 election, she would not have balanced anything [family and job] because had they won, they [she and Todd] would have done the White House like they did everything else, as a team. She still thinks that she lost the election to President Obama. I hate to be the one to tell her, but she did not. Sen. McCain lost the election. She may well have been a contributing factor, but she was really just along for the ride and actually, would have lived in the Naval Observatory, not the White House. I could go on and on, and on, but you get the point.

Lately, I think that she may have turned a corner and gone too far. It is one thing to be critical of policy decisions whether she understands them or not. People understand that she is planning to run for president in 2012 and that she is building up a library of media sound bytes for the campaign, and floating trial policy balloons. What she is doing lately, however, is attacking people. I think most of her followers understand and expect her to attack the President on a personal level, after all, she has them convinced, with the help of Fox News, that all of the criticism she receives are personal attacks against her. The media criticizes Bristol, or rather, the actions of Sarah Palin's followers in regards to Bristol, and therefore, it is open season on Sasha and Meliah Obama. Never mind that Sasha and Melia are young children and Bristol is 20. Never mind that she is a "teen advocate" who has made a number of public appearances which to me, denotes a, I don't know, public figure? I'm not sure why she is also personally attacking Michelle Obama, but she has done that in the past, in fact, she is recycling attacks from the 2008 campaign, probably because there is nothing else to say. The difference between her children and the Obama children is immense, but she cannot see it.

Sarah Palin has this ability to conflate issues to support her opinions. Politicians take campaign photos that include their families for a brochure or maybe a commercial, and take them onstage when they declare victory (or defeat), so to Sarah, this is exactly the same as her trotting her children to every campaign event, speaking engagement, or book signing that she attends. As governor, she got into trouble because she insisted on her family attending every event that she did, and in fact, photos of, for example, visiting trade delegations include attendees in appropriate business attire, Sarah in jeans and a windbreaker, and Piper. Very, very few official photos did not include Piper. One wonders if that child ever attended school. We know she did occasionally rather than being home-schooled from the questions she was asked by reporters on the campaign trail. When questions arose about Trigg, she immediately announced that her unmarried, underage daughter was pregnant, then forced her to sit on stage and endure a level of attention that was likely extremely humiliating (remember your teens?).It is not wonder that her detractors accuse her of using her children as props to deflect attention from her flaws or attract attention to her as the perfect mother. Props they are.

Her latest, and purely to pander to her supporters, is another attack on government overreach and intrusion by "the Feds" as she likes to call them. Teabags are anti-government, so gosh-darn-it, every time the government does anything, Sarah Palin will attack. Michelle Obama is well-known for advocating against childhood obesity and for better diets for all, Sarah Palin has chosen to attack Michelle Obama in her most recent book:

"Take her anti-obesity thing that she’s on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And..and..and I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."

What is amusing, is that while governor, she was not entirely useless. Probably little more than a talking head, as she was when she claimed to be a journalist, in her State of the State speech in 2009, Sarah Palin said: [emphasis added]

"Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help."

Chef Kurt Michael Friese responded to the exchange with one of the best comments that I've heard:

"You see, Mrs. Palin, contrary to what President Reagan once said, government is not the problem, nor is it the solution. Government is a tool, like a hammer. And like a hammer it can be used by people to build things up or tear things down. I would choose the former, and you would choose to throw the hammer out the window."

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Someone, Please Explain the Pentagon Papers to Sarah Palin

2010-11-29T19:39:00.000-08:00

As we know, about 250,000 diplomatic cables have been released by Wikileaks to five major newspapers in the US and Europe. It should be noted that months have been spent reviewing these cables to establish standards for publication between the papers prior to receipt of the materials, and the governments involved were notified months in advance what would be included in the "dump" so that they might do any damage control. By the way, Glenn Greenwald over at Salon has been keeping a list of persons killed as a result of any of the (now) three information dumps and has come up with a total of zero. Full disclosure, I have really mixed feelings about this, but the point of this post is not the actual information leak itself, but rather Sarah Palin and her reaction.

Sarah Palin has, once again, inserted herself into this conversation. God forbid that a significant (or not so significant) issue occur without her having an opinion, and whether it has anything to do with him or not, attack President Obama. Certainly the cables do refer to his administration, and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration, and actually go back to 1965 in some cases. What has been reviewed so far appears primarily to be on the order of embarrassing rather than dangerous. But, Sarah Palin never one to miss an opportunity to badmouth the President, and more importantly, put herself forward, blames him for the leak and the release of the information.

The tweet?

“Inexplicable: I recently won in court to stop my book “America by Heart” from being leaked,but US Govt can’t stop Wikileaks’ treasonous act?”

What she probably should do is get a dictionary and look up treason, leak, and inexplicable. It wouldn't hurt, seeing as how she has published two books in the past year, to review copyright law. I know she claims that she will never, ever, ever speak to Katie Couric again, but on the off chance that she runs for public office again which appears highly likely, and she is asked about her favorite Supreme Court decisions, or one she disagrees with, she could go learn about 403 US 731 (1971) New York Times Co. v United States. This is more commonly known as the case of the Pentagon Papers. The issue? Prior restraint. The government tried to prevent the New York Times from publishing documents reporting the results of a study on the decision making process related to the Vietnam conflict. The 1st Amendment, that pesky little amendment that Sarah Palin seems to be confused about (remember, on Oct. 30, 2008, she complained that her first amendment rights were being violated by media attacks on her). She, of the journalism degree that makes her the final word in what is "good journalism," seems not to understand that the first amendment is simply protection of the media from the government and at the time, she was pretty definitely the government.

Ezra Klien of the Washington Post, speaking on The Last Word on MSNBC, said, in referring to her tweets about Wikileaks, that he found it fascinating "...how small Sarah Palin's reaction is to this."

One of the best analyses I've read today about this reaction is from Sarah Jones at PoliticsUSA, writing WikiSqueaks: Sarah Palin's Incoherently Dangerous Wikileaks Criticism. Italics is Sarah Palin.

Responding to Sarah Palin's demand that President Obama do something to protect our soldiers, and blaming him completely for not averting the dump in the first place, Sarah Jones says:

[...]

"Not only is Wikileaks is hosted in Sweden where, I feel duty bound to point out, the President of the US does not have sovereignty as of yet and where it is impossible to commit treason against this country unless one is a US citizen residing in Sweden, but also, as Ms Palin must be aware (given her recent claim to a journalism degree that qualified her to discredit all American media save Fox News) there’s that pesky Pentagon Papers ruling"[sic]

"We are at war. American soldiers are in Afghanistan fighting to protect our freedoms. They are serious about keeping America safe. It would be great if they could count on their government being equally serious about that vital task.”

"Ms Palin is charging the Obama administration with neglecting national security on purpose, implying that he is anti-American, as she did during the 2008 campaign. And that must sting the President, coming as it does from a person married to a once-registered secessionist..."

[...]

It isn’t that she doesn’t know the law, it’s that she doesn’t care to know the law. It isn’t that she assumes dictator like powers as President, it’s that she has already proven in Alaska that she governs with reckless abandon for the law. This is the person quoted as saying to the Wasilla City Council leader, “’I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can’t.”

I've been working on several things today unrelated to news and politics, but I kept TweetDeck open all day and popped in and out when something caught my eye. Everyone has written about this issue, most weighing in on whether or not they agreed with the release of the documents. Most of the discussion seems to be about the damage that may or may not have been done, and the next dump which is reputed to be bank information. The cluelessness of Sarah Palin puts an amusing coda on the subject, but also is very frightening. Although in the middle of the piece, this paragraph from Ms. Jones piece, is I believe, the most important point: (emphasis added)

"And this is where the real trouble begins. Are we to believe that in Ms Palin’s America, she would assume the right to shut down any blog, paper, or freedom of information act organization she disliked by claiming they were a threat to national security (and the troops)? Would it be asking too much for American citizens to get more information on Ms Palin’s understanding of the fine tightrope between transparency and security, court precedent and a general understanding of the balance of power inherent in our government? Does Ms Palin think Americans are entitled to hear her discuss these complicated issues on a regular news outlet at some point, as the rest of our lawmakers and leaders do?"

thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

16 of the Dumbest Things Americans Believe & the Right-Wing Lies Behind Them

2010-11-21T23:07:00.000-08:00

Sarah Seltzer at AlterNet writes 16 of the Dumbest Things Americans Believe -- And the Right-Wing Lies Behind Them. I have written a bit, as have many others, on this phenomenon and the GOP media machine that makes these lies successful, but this is an excellent article that illustrates exactly what the problem is, and why. [emphasis added]

"Americans are often misinformed, occasionally downright dumb, and easily misled by juicy-sounding rumors. But while the right wing is taking full advantage of this reality, the Left worries that calling out lies is "rude."

"Remember when Congressman Joe Wilson stood up during Obama’s State of the Union address and shouted “You lie”? He was chastised soundly by the pundit class. But mostly he drew heat for being impolite, and was compared to Kanye West and other famous interrupters."

"Revisiting Wilson's foolish tirade underscores the state of our upside-down political world. Wilson shouted “you lie” in the face of truth, but President Obama is hesitant to speak up when he’s being slandered with bald, glaring untruths...It feels like no one with a loud enough megaphone has the courage to call a spade a spade, or more accurately a lie a lie."

[...]

"Polling data during and after last week’s midterm elections suggested that many Americans genuinely believe President Obama has raised their taxes -- even though the reality is that our president actually lowered them for most of us. This means that people trust pundits like Rush Limbaugh, a major force behind spreading that lie, over the numbers on their own tax returns."
"Another recent phenomenon? Half of new Congressmen don’t believe in the reality of global warming. It’s not that they don’t just disagree on the source or the severity of the problem. They flat out don’t think the world is getting warmer--despite the evidence outside their windows."
"The new Congress will probably try to restore millions of dollars of funding for scientifically inaccurate, largely disastrous abstinence-only curriculum in schools, many of which have been shown to spread lies like "condoms don't work" and "abortion causes cancer."
"News outlets picked up a wildly inflated and completely outlandish claim from an Indian blog that Obama’s trip abroad cost $200 million a day--and listeners have swallowed it. (In this case, the White House flat-out denied it.)"

"The scary thing is, these kinds of rumors have a way of taking root in the popular consciousness. Just as the election season began heating up earlier this year, Newsweek published a list of “Dumb Things Americans Believe.” While some of them are garden-variety lunacy, a surprising number are lies that were fed to Americans by our leaders on the far-Right. This demonstrates that media-fed lies can easily become ingrained in the collective memory if they’re not countered quickly and surely. Newsweek’s list included the following 12 statistics taken from recent and semi-recent polls and surveys. The first half are directly related to right-wing rumormongering."

"Nearly one-fifth of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. Thanks, Fox news, for acting like this was a matter of opinion, not fact."
"25 percent of Americans don’t believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution while less than 40 percent do. Consider the fact that several of our newly elected officials, specifically newly elected Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, share that belief."
"Earlier this year, nearly 40 percent of Americans still believed the Sarah Palin-supported lie about "death panels" being included in health care reform."
"As of just a few years ago, about half of Americans still suspected a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, a lie that was reinforced by none other than Dick Cheney."
"While a hefty amount of this demonstrable cluelessness gets better as the respondents get younger, all is not well in the below-30 demographic. A majority of “young Americans” cannot identify Iraq or Afghanistan--the places their peers are fighting and dying--on a map."
"Two out of five Americans, despite the whole separation of church and state being a foundation of our democracy thing, think teachers should be able to lead prayer in classrooms. So it seems those right-wingers clamoring to tear down the wall between church and state aren’t the only ones who don’t know their constitutional principles."
"Many Americans still believe in witchcraft, ESP and other supernatural phenomena. Does that explain why Christine O’Donnell was so quick to deny her “dabbling”?"
"Speaking of antiquated religious beliefs, about a decade ago, 20 percent of Americans still believed that the sun revolves around the earth. That's just sad, considering that even the Vatican has let Galileo off the hook for being right."
"Only about half of Americans realize that Judaism is the oldest of the three monotheistic religions. Other examples of wild misunderstanding about religion and the separation of church and state can be found in this fall’s Pew survey on Americans’ religious knowledge."
"This one made a huge splash when it appeared. In 2006 more Americans were able to name two of the “seven dwarves” than two of the Supreme Court justices. And that was before Kagan and Sotomayor showed up. To be fair, Happy and Sleepy are easy to remember."
"More Americans can identify the Three Stooges than the three branches of government--you know, the ones who are jockeying over our welfare."

[...]

“...by a two-to-one margin likely voters thought their taxes had gone up, when, for almost all of them, they had actually gone down. Republican politicians, and conservative commentators, told them Barack Obama was a tax-mad lunatic. They lied. The mainstream media did not do their job and correct them. The White House was too polite—"civil," just like Obama promised—to say much. So people believed the lie.”

[...]

"Blaming Americans for being ignorant unwashed masses--or taking potshots at an education system that doesn’t teach critical thinking-- would be the easy answer to this conundrum."

"But the reality is that if messaging has such a big effect on Americans, then messaging matters. Folks on our end have to counter the lies with well-told, unabashed unironic, truth-telling. And we have to demand that our media, and our politicians, call out the other side. As Perlstein notes, “When one side breaks the social contract, and the other side makes a virtue of never calling them out on it, the liar always wins. When it becomes 'uncivil' to call out liars, lying becomes free.”

"Even worse, once lies begin to spread, they become more than rumors--they become permanent beliefs."

This is an extremely critical subject and one that we cannot ignore. The 2012 presidential race has already begun and will begin moving quickly after the first of the year. Please do go read the rest of this article and learn these points. The GOPhers have an excellent media machine and have trained Americans to listen to buzzwords and sound-bytes. If that is the way people listen, then it is important that we be able to respond in kind. Use this information to talk to your friends and relatives, write letters to the editor, tweet or post to Facebook. When the GOPhers lie, we must continue to call them out and respond with the truth.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Just for Fun. How Many of These Have You Read?

2010-11-21T18:07:00.000-08:00

Have you read more than 6 of these books? The BBC believes most people will have read only 6 of the 100 books listed here.

Copy this list. Because of formatting issues (the instructions are to bold, but too tedious in a comment), delete those you have not read. Put an asterisk next to those that you have started but not finished or read an excerpt of. If you'd like to see how you compare (although this is NOT a contest!) feel free to copy and paste into a comment. Think there is a book that should be on this list but is not? Note that in the comments, too. I'm always curious to see what others' think are great books

I have added my list to a comment if anyone is interested. Kind of fun to see

1 Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen
2 The Lord of the Rings - JRR Tolkien
3 Jane Eyre - Charlotte Brontë
4 Harry Potter series - J. K. Rowling
5 To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee
6 The Bible
7 Wuthering Heights - Emily Bronte
8 Nineteen Eighty Four - George Orwell
9 His Dark Materials - Philip Pullman
10 Great Expectations - Charles Dickens
11 Little Women - Louisa M Alcott
12 Tess of the D’Urbervilles - Thomas Hardy
13 Catch 22 - Joseph Heller
14 Complete Works of Shakespeare
15 Rebecca - Daphne Du Maurier
16 The Hobbit - JRR Tolkien
17 Birdsong - Sebastian Faulk
18 Catcher in the Rye - JD Salinger
19 The Time Traveler’s Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
20 Middlemarch - George Eliot
21 Gone With The Wind - Margaret Mitchell
22 The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
24 War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
25 The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
27 Crime and Punishment - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
28 Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
29 Alice in Wonderland - Lewis Carroll
30 The Wind in the Willows - Kenneth Grahame
31 Anna Karenina - Leo Tolstoy
32 David Copperfield - Charles Dickens
33 Chronicles of Narnia - CS Lewis
34 Emma - Jane Austen
35 Persuasion - Jane Austen
36 The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe - CS Lewis
37 The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini
38 Captain Corelli’s Mandolin - Louis De Bernieres
39 Memoirs of a Geisha - Arthur Golden
40 Winnie the Pooh - A.A. Milne
41 Animal Farm - George Orwell
42 The Da Vinci Code - Dan Brown
43 One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
44 A Prayer for Owen Meaney - John Irving
45 The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins
46 Anne of Green Gables - LM Montgomery
47 Far From The Madding Crowd - Thomas Hardy
48 The Handmaid’s Tale - Margaret Atwood
49 Lord of the Flies - William Golding
50 Atonement - Ian McEwan
51 Life of Pi - Yann Martel
52 Dune - Frank Herbert
53 Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons
54 Sense and Sensibility - Jane Austen
55 A Suitable Boy - Vikram Seth
56 The Shadow of the Wind - Carlos Ruiz Zafon
57 A Tale Of Two Cities - Charles Dickens
58 Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
59 The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time - Mark Haddon
60 Love In The Time Of Cholera - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
61 Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck
62 Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov
63 The Secret History - Donna Tartt
64 The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold Lame
65 Count of Monte Cristo - Alexandre Dumas
66 On The Road - Jack Kerouac
67 Jude the Obscure - Thomas Hardy
68 Bridget Jones’s Diary - Helen Fielding
69 Midnight’s Children - Salman Rushdie
70 Moby Dick - Herman Melville
71 Oliver Twist - Charles Dickens
72 Dracula - Bram Stoker
73 The Secret Garden - Frances Hodgson Burnett
74 Notes From A Small Island - Bill Bryson
75 Ulysses - James Joyce
76 The Inferno - Dante
77 Swallows and Amazons - Arthur Ransome
78 Germinal - Emile Zola
79 Vanity Fair - William Makepeace Thackeray
80 Possession - AS Byatt
81 A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens
82 Cloud Atlas - David Mitchell
83 The Color Purple - Alice Walker
84 The Remains of the Day - Kazuo Ishiguro
85 Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert
86 A Fine Balance - Rohinton Mistry
87 Charlotte’s Web - E.B. White
88 The Five People You Meet In Heaven - Mitch Albom
89 Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
90 The Faraway Tree Collection - Enid Blyton
91 Heart of Darkness - Joseph Conrad
92 The Little Prince - Antoine De Saint-Exupery
93 The Wasp Factory - Iain Banks
94 Watership Down - Richard Adams
95 A Confederacy of Dunces - John Kennedy Toole
96 A Town Like Alice - Nevil Shute
97 The Three Musketeers - Alexandre Dumas
98 Hamlet - William Shakespeare
99 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - Roald Dahl
100 Les Miserables - Victor Hugo

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble - I Hope

2010-11-19T13:04:00.000-08:00

I am tempted to insert the entire post from Politics USA: The Inevitable Bursting of Sarah Palin's Media Bubble written today by Sarah Jones. Please go read it in its entirety as it is one of the best I have seen on the subject of Sarah Palin's newest book and her relationship with the media.

Although the book is not due to be published until next week, several pages have been "leaked" and posted on Palingates and elsewhere. It should be noted that publishers release portions of books expected to generate a lot of interest in order to generate buzz and increase first day sales. Starting out at the top of the NY Times bestseller list is always a goal. On a side note, Sarah posted this tweet, clearly demonstrating her misunderstanding of copyright law, fair use law, and the First Amendment.

Yes Sarah, it is absolutely legal. Gawker also wrote at length about the excerpts as well as the ongoing controversy about Bristol and Dancing with the Stars, and she, in response to their posting pages from her book, and their "attacks" on her family, sent out this tweet:

This tweet was taken down almost immediately, but as she has yet to learn, the internet is forever.

Sarah Jones notes that Sarah Palin appears to be stuck in the past, 2008 to be specific. She uses race to attack the President, and remarkably, Michelle and Meliah Obama as well.

"Anyone who is surprised by this has not been paying attention. Sarah Palin is the great divider, a lowest common denominator among an already low-brow movement of proud to be ignorant, pseudo-rebellious anarchists who are super angry about the democratic process which renounced them in 2008."

Jones discusses how Palin has been talking about Reverend Wright, the supposed lack of qualifications of Obama, and other issues that have been thoroughly put to rest by anyone but her.

"None of these strategies worked in 2008 and beating these dusty memes only makes Palin look like the emotional retrograde she is, still clinging to her wounds from 2008 and sure that if enough people hear her, they will denounce Obama. Ms Palin is unaware that in real America, blatant racism doesn’t play well. And she is also unaware that our President and his family are too self-disciplined to even acknowledge her embarrassingly juvenile attempts to engage them."

[...]

"...Palin will not know what hit her because she is still stuck in 2008, seething with jealousy and outrage that she lost to a black man.

And this is why race will be her “issue”.

Palin is going to run for President, and this is how she will do it. Why? Because she has nothing else..."

Palin is the ultimate martyr and victim flashing a bit of thigh, appealing to the KKK type crowd.

"So Sarah Palin’s campaign has already begun and it will consist of trashy, unspeakable things that will hurt your soul, pain your heart and make you question the sanity of your country. And when no one pushes back hard enough against her outrageous claims (they will debunk the lie, but fail to expose the projection), you will find yourself curling up into a ball of horror at what your country has become."

She limits herself to venues that are supportive, and reporters that let her set the tone, not believing that no one will let her get away with that should she run for President in 2012. She claims that being on Fox everyday gives her "exposure" not realizing that:

"Exposure is what celebrities do. It is not the same thing as taking questions and talking policy, in other words, interacting in live time with the fourth estate. Neither Facebook nor Twitter nor Fox are vehicles for the fourth estate to do their job. As a supposed journalism major (in spite of the fact that no one at her last college remembers her and we have not been gifted with proof of her degree), Palin should have at least cursory knowledge of the job of a reporter. Not many on Fox PAC will ever be accused of being a reporter. Twitter is not a reporter. Facebook is not a reporter."

Providing some well-earned criticism to the mainstream media, Jones notes that:

"While they will still miss the larger points, they’ve had time to get to know Palin’s reputation for lies and they will not want to be humiliated again. The press scrutiny of the VP candidate is nothing compared to the scrutiny she will face as the top of the ticket. If Sarah Palin thought the media was cruel to her when they asked her what she read, wait until they ask her why she lied about not having healthcare, about Troopergate, about the AIP connections, about Death Panels, the people who died under her administration or about her belief that Iraq bordered America"

Her conclusion is a direct message to Sarah, and indirectly to the media. It is one that I hope the media heeds, although I will not hold my breath.

"And that’s not even the juicy bits. Welcome to 2012, Ms Palin. If you insist upon bringing your scourge of hate upon this country, don’t think we’re going to sit back and take it like we did in 2008. Buckle up, sweetie. The spotlight is on you, where you’ve always wanted it, but I’m not sure you’re going to like it. Your dreams of stardom may well turn into a nightmare. You are about to learn what it feels like to be attacked for real."

Please do read the entire post here.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney At It Again. Successful Trial Dangerous & Shows Weakness?

2010-11-18T14:49:00.000-08:00

Image: leftwingnutjob

A verdict was reached in the case of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani on Wednesday. Charged with 285 counts related to the embassy bombings, he was acquitted on all but one, destruction of government property. This verdict will net him 20 years in federal prison, so we can say that any potential terrorist activities that he might be planning to engage in will not happen--at least not with him. The other big piece of news associated with this case, is that New York City did not shut down as a result of this trial. No road closures, no major security issues, and no terrorist attacks resulting from attempts to free Ghailani. Despite the outrage from the right, a satisfactory conclusion--one of about 400--was reached in a civilian court after the trial of a Guantanamo prisoner. How many convictions have been the result of military tribunals, the preferred method of the right? Five. Back on her little soapbox, Liz Cheney rants that families of the victims claim the trial was a "travesty." This is the same Liz who demands that President Obama support the intelligence community that her father tried so hard to co-opt and then damage when they had the nerve to refute his allegations.The same Liz whose organization, "Keep America Safe" is designed to instill fear in all of us in an effort to burnish her father's legacy.

According to Daphne Eviatar, Human Rights First's Human Rights Law and Security Program: Ahmed Ghailani Verdict Makes the Case for Federal Courts posted in Huffington Post, the results do not appear to matter. Liz, her partner Bill Kristol, and others, are having a hissy fit that they did not get their way, that the deeply flawed policies of her father's administration and the war that they lied us into have been brought out into the open and so have to create drama where none exists. Her father set up a system of military tribunals for prisoners at Guantanamo, primarily so that illegal practices could continue to be hidden. The current administration, however, has decided to hold these trials in civilian courts as they should be. Liz is quoted as saying:

"The Obama Administration recklessly insisted on a civilian trial for Ahmed Ghailani, and rolled the dice in a time of war. It's dangerous. It signals weakness in a time of war."

Don't you love how she insists on holding to her position regardless of the facts? The trial is over, the defendant was found guilty, he is unlikely to ever be released from prison, the rule of law has been, once again, found to work, and yet, "...it's dangerous" and "...signals weakness."

With the attention today of TSA screening policies that now require either a full scan or a full pat-down, something that the head of El-Al security (the most secure airline in the world) claims is unnecessary, the GOP placement of defense spending in the sacrosanct column, and the inability Liz and others on the right to recognize the success of the Obama Administration in preventing terrorist attacks (the Christmas Day bomber, the recent packages detected prior to their arrival in this country...) it is remarkable to me that people continue to give credence and airtime to this woman or to this subject. What the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration and the demands of Liz and her ilk do accomplish is give the terrorists exactly what they want. The goal of terror is to create a climate of fear. The primary tool of the GOP? Fear. Liz's goal? Fear. I would say that in a significant way, mission accomplished.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin's Alaska. Palin Children Well-Taught, But Not What She'd Like Us to See.

2010-11-14T22:05:00.000-08:00

Image: lynnrockets

I hadn't planned on watching, but just as we all seem to watch train wrecks, I did watch Sarah Palin's Alaska this evening. Having done so, I can say that I will not be wasting any more time watching in the future. What a total waste of time. What struck me, is that prior to the show airing Sarah made quite a fuss about this not being a "reality" show, but was to share Alaska with those in the lower 48 who were not familiar with the state. Uh huh.What it did show is that whatever we may think of the Palin children, they have been well taught.

If this were in fact a travelogue, as she claims it was, then the segment on the cement slab discussing the "dude out to get you" and "the author writing a hit piece" would be cut, the section on Willow and her boyfriend going upstairs would be cut, and the part about Sarah in her studio talking to Bill O'Reilly on Fox with Todd serving as engineer would have been cut. Those portions that took up a significant amount of time had nothing to do with "Sarah Palin's Alaska," but rather had to do with a reality-show type slice of life in the Palin family and were an attempt (failed) to improve her image to the 52% of Americans who disapprove of her. Clearly the story about her having editorial control must be true.

Most of the activities were clearly brand new to Palin and to her family (wanting to show America what life was like for them in Alaska? Really?) and the little vignette with Willow demonstrated that her kids have as much respect for her as she has for them, meaning none, and that Sarah's maturity level is on a par (if that) with her children. After all, what mother is going to embarrass her teen aged daughter on national television by talking about whether or not she can have boys upstairs? Seriously. Only Sarah Palin.

As a counselor, the most important part of the show, to me, was at the end when Sarah said to Piper that "we one-upped him [Joe McGinnes] because we had a good day and he was stuck at home." Since the Palins hit the national scene, I have watched the dynamics of this family and there is plenty of evidence to make some pretty strong conclusions. Without going in depth into my opinion of someone who takes her daughter into situations that are clearly inappropriate, I have to say that the message that Sarah sends to Piper with that comment, and others she has made, is pretty astonishing. Essentially, she is telling her children two things. First, that there is no dividing line between children and adults, and second, that you do not bother trying to find a positive motivation for anyone's actions, or give them the benefit of the doubt. She is telling them that the Christian tenets of forgiveness and turning the other cheek are foreign concepts in their household, and most importantly, life is about revenge. Getting even, getting yours, and making sure that you screw others before they have a chance to screw you. Lovely.

I want my hour back, but lacking that, I will certainly have something else to do on future Sunday evenings. Take my advice. Don't waste your time.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Hey Kids, Ignore Your Teachers. Sarah Palin Says It's Okay to Ignore Rules.

2010-11-11T16:16:00.000-08:00

Photo: rollingpinproductions

As I watched all the talking heads discuss Sarah Palin's "speech" in Pennsylvania where she proclaimed that parents should be the ones to decide what their kids eat, not the gov'mint (if she paid any attention, she would know that while school boards set policy, parents have significant impact on those policies if they are unhappy) I thought that most of them had missed the point. As she whined about the big, bad government daring to decide what kids could or not eat (never mind that she had misunderstood the 'suggested guidelines' as a mandate), she announced that she had brought a couple hundred cookies with her for the kids to prove her point that it was up to parents to make those sorts of decisions. No word on whether she actually asked the parents if they wanted their kids to have the cookies. No word on whether the school actually distributed those cookies, but that isn't the point.

As I watched the various pundits, and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, discuss the situation, the emphasis was on the fact that Sarah Palin had, once again, governmentized something. That she had taken a small issue as representative of "big government overreach" to fire up her base and demonstrate her point that "government bad." They all decided that by choosing these fairly trivial issues to emphasize, she could show how far into our daily lives government intrudes. The fact that such things as setting nutritional guidelines is the proper role of government is completely beyond her. I have to wonder, again, still, if government is so bad, why on earth does she want so badly to be a part of it? Of course, she doesn't. She just sees it as the ultimate in being the center of attention.

The point that I see and that I think was missed, and it is something I have been seeing in much of what this woman does, is not that she has to demonize government in everything she says, but that instead, she is teaching children, as she has clearly done with her own (just listen to statements made to media by, for example, Piper or Bristol), that rules only matter if you agree with them. It is all about winning at any cost, game the system if you have to, and if you don't think a rule is fair, or reasonable, or if it is an example of "government overreach," just ignore it. So, give a speech to schoolkids and tell them to ignore their teachers and principal and, in effect, any other rules that they care to cause hey, if you get to throw out one rule, why not all of them?

What exactly is Palin actually advocating? That 2nd amendment solution her followers are so fond of--I didn't get my way so I'm going to force you to give it to me according to Sharon Angle et al--is essentially saying that rules only count if 1) I made them, or 2) I agree with them. and 3) I am the only one that matters.What a terrific example of parenting and family values. Never mind teaching your kids ethics, integrity, honesty, and respect for authority. She has already demonstrated keeping commitments. What about how to participate in changing policy from the inside out (voting, running for office, serving on the PTA) rather than simply ignoring any rule you do not like? But that's too much like work. No wonder there is so much wrong with our society.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Serial Idiot Goldberg Annoyed At Fascist Name Calling, "Not What I Hoped"

2010-11-09T15:43:00.000-08:00

I have a love/hate relationship with Jonah Goldberg. I love to write about him because he is such a rich source of material, one of my "serial idiots" that provides a column in just about everything he has to say because it is so ridiculous. Hate, because by writing about him, I give him and his delusions more attention than they deserve. Holding on tight to his post at the National Review, received shortly after the Monica events for which Jonah held a minor, supporting role which he inflated to get himself on the tv machine as often as possible, Jonah weighs in on the teabag use of the term "fascist."

Speaking on C-Span this weekend, he was quoted as saying:

"One of the great failures of my book is that it has popularized the use of 'fascism' as an epithet. And one of the things I was hoping to do, and I failed miserably, is shut down the use of the word 'fascist' as an epithet. Instead it's become bipartisan. And I don't like it. I don't think it's all that helpful. It might help my books sales, but that's not what I had hoped to do."

After one moves beyond the breathtaking egotism involved in his first statement (after all, fascism has been a discredited political movement since basically forever) you have to consider that one does not write a book with the title "Liberal Fascism" with the intent to remove the word fascist as an epithet. As a member of the "conservative movement" (that's Jonah, always after the main chance, a Democrat who flipped when he saw that that's where the money is) use of the term liberal is an epithet. Attaching anything to it makes it a pejorative and adding a term commonly used to characterize negative political ideology to the term liberal, he has attempted to equate liberals with negative politics. As the two--liberal and fascism--are ideological opposites with fascism typically a preserve of the extreme right, trying to link the two is nothing more than an attempt to demonize liberals. According to dictionary.com, [emphasis added]

FASCISM:
[fash-iz-uhm] –noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
LIBERALISM:
[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]–noun
1.the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Not sure I can find anything that equate the two or even links them other than they each represent a political philosophy. But, the mindset of someone who could equate the two, or believe it, is the same mindset that would believe that socialism and communism are the same thing, and that what was embodied by the Soviet Union was what was envisioned by Marx.

Ah well. Perhaps Jonah hadn't been able to get outside of the pages of the pages of his column lately and needed to get some face time on the tv machine again. If you are unfamiliar with Jonah, he has an amusing history and typically wacky ideas which I have written about here, here, and here.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Here We Go Again. Liz Cheney, Please, Shut Up

2010-10-29T14:24:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. Even before President Obama speaks regarding the bombs shipped out of Yemen that were detected prior to arriving in this country and the actions taken to verify the safety of other packages originating from Yemen and Dubai, Liz Cheney has to inject herself into the conversation.

Cheney is a self-appointed foreign affairs expert, believing that because her father was vice-president, she somehow knows more about the dangers that we face than anyone else, particularly our current president. She is identified during her appearances on Fox News as a previous State Department official (mid-level administrative position prior to the Bush administration, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State during in a position made specifically for her). Just as an aside, I have written several times about Liz, and used Wikipedia to check a few dates, etc. The difference in the information about her from today to the last time I checked is like night and day, something we all need to remember when using Wikipedia as a source: it is self-editable. Reading it today one would wonder why she is not immediately called back to the State Department to solve all of our countries foreign affairs issues. I bet she did a little editing of her page.

Appearing today on Fox's "America Live," this clip from Media Matters shows Cheney explaining why the incident today proves why we have to stay in Afghanistan saying:

"...you see at a time like this how important, for example, intelligence is...how important it is for us to make sure that we've empowered our own intelligence community and that we're working closely with our allies...to disrupt plots before they do in fact come to fruition..."

Discussing the necessity of maintaining the war in Afghanistan and not setting arbitrary deadlines (like the one Bush set for Iraq?), she said:

"...and while people here are concerned about the economy and about jobs, it certainly does not change the nature of the threat, the fact remains that we remain a nation at war."

Stop and think about this for a minute. "How important intelligence is...how important it is to empower our intelligence community..."

Did the Bush White House ever make a decision that was not political? I believe it was that administration that had the opportunity to capture Osama bin Laden at Bora Bora and completely decimate al Qaeda but they chose instead to leave before the job was done, and attack Iraq, a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We didn't know that at the time you say? I did. Many people did. The fact that the only information regarding possible evidence of weapons of mass destruction (the supposed reason for our starting the war) was debunked prior to Bush's final decision was not widely reported, but it was reported. Bush and Cheney chose to ignore it. In fact, there is evidence that Dick Cheney pressured the intelligence community to manipulate the data to support the conclusions that he preferred.

Empower our intelligence community? Is that what you call identifying an undercover operative assigned to middle eastern affairs to the media? Putting the lives of her contacts at risk in so doing?

Why is she complaining today that we need to work closely with our allies? We were alerted that two packages were being sent to synagogues in Chicago, and they were intercepted in Dubai and Britain. They never reached U.S. shores, and all other packages sent from Yemen and Dubai were examined prior to their release for delivery. That obviously required a lot of coordination and cooperation with our allies and intelligence community.

She obviously is not concerned about the economy or the fact that her father enabled policies that sent jobs overseas, resulting in the high unemployment we have today. Haliburton, Daddy's previous employer and the author of a significant portion of our energy legislation (and the lucky winner of billions in no-bid contracts in Iraq) is directly responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs in the Gulf region of the U.S. as it's defective materials built the defective oil rigs that have destroyed not only jobs, but ecosystems.

Yes, we are a nation at war. One of the two wars that we wage was completely unnecessary. The climate of fear and hate bred by the GOP has ensured that the war continues as we damage what little goodwill remains in the world towards us, and continues to provide al Qaeda with limitless recruitment materials. What Liz is doing is demanding that the administration take actions that are being taken. She implies that President Obama is soft on terrorists and because we successfully prevented bombs from arriving in this country, we must continue the war in Afghanistan (?), she gets herself on the tv machine and once again, injects herself into a situation that allows her to promote her organization and agenda.

Liz, go home. You are a bitter and ignorant woman. Your father was responsible for most of what is wrong with this country today and your belief that you somehow have all the answers is breathtakingly egotistical.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Teabags: Don't Confuse Me With the Facts

2010-10-28T21:23:00.000-07:00

Image: friendlyathiest.com

Things are heating up. The ads are getting nastier and the lies thicker. I'm seriously considering following my sister's example and de-friending about half my family on my Facebook page as they are very conservative Christians, fans of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and this past week, my cousin (from Washington), joined the "I Like Meg Whitman" group. Facebook to me is social, not political, and I am usually able to ignore the comments and video clips (and most of that side of the family), keeping them around because there are times when, as family, we need to communicate. What I hear from them, and the right-wing pundits, and the right-wing blogs, and many of the "neutral" mainstream media, is that the teabags, who appear to have a real chance of taking over at least one house of Congress, claim to want to cut regulations, overturn health care reform, reduce taxes, and take us back to the Constitution the way it was supposed to be, the original.

The politicians and pundits know they're lying. It's possible that some of them believe their own press because it's the only way they can behave the way they do, but for most, it's a matter of expediency and money.

President Bush's administration produced two solutions to the economic downturn; TARP, and the stimulus bill. Additionally, when the auto industry was failing after the election, Bush asked that President-elect Obama pursue a solution as it would have to be carried out under his leadership. Although millions are still out of work and the foreclosure problem is still huge, the job numbers are better than a year ago, the auto industry is actually making a profit, has re-hired many of its workers (1500 about a couple of weeks ago), the DOW is almost back to where it was pre-downturn, everywhere I turn I see "this project paid for by stimulus funds" signs, and job growth numbers already exceed those of Bush's entire two terms. In fact, more jobs were created in the private sector in the first eight months of the Obama Administration than in the entire Bush presidency, and they want to go back to those policies?

There is really no way to compare a president who arrives with a $200 billion dollar surplus and leaves with us with a $407 billion deficit eight years later.

The next time someone says it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs, perhaps you could refer them to the famous "bikini" graph courtesy of Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly:

As you can see, job growth was negative the entire duration of the Bush presidency. The trend continued downward the first quarter after Obama came into office until it's first positive growth in Dec. 2009. Obviously, it takes time, but except for one dip, growth has been slow, but measured.

To continue on this comparison of Republican administrations and policies to those of Democratic presidents, below is a quick chart going back to Truman showing the rate of job growth.

Graph: KyraMoment

Obviously, I made the Democrats blue and Republicans red. I am not going to go into a discussion of private vs. public sector jobs, small businesses vs. large, the job loss to job growth numbers by sector and the net growth. This graph took about ten minutes to create using numbers easily available with a Google search so anyone can fact-check me if they want.

We also hear that it's taxes. President Obama gave us a tax cut by reducing withholding rather than sending out checks. The latter would have been a better political option, but the small, incremental increase in available cash was better for the economy overall, thus few people know about it. Very few understand that last year we paid the lowest taxes in 60 years. So, if it is in fact about taxes, then obviously they will want to vote Democratic.

We hear over and over again that we have to do something about the deficit, created by Obama (not). Had President Bush written the budgets properly and not ignored the costs of war, the country would have been aware of our debt much sooner. The fastest way to send us into a real depression, is to try to bring down the deficit. When people are working, goods and services are moving through the economy and the associated taxes arriving at the appropriate local, state, or federal tax agency, then the deficit will begin to come down on its own.

Additionally, government's function is to spend money. As an unemployed social services worker, I know that after 20 years of budget cuts, there is very little waste left in government (except perhaps military spending). In California, state employees are on mandatory furlough each month because our constitution requires a balanced budget. The best way for the deficit to be reduced, is for the government to collect taxes and spend them. Unlike the top 5% of our citizens who have millions and billions of dollars tucked away, the government does not keep its money. It spends it. Money spent moves into the economy. Government hires workers, and purchases supplies, and makes capital purchases. Government spends money on infrastructure, which puts money into the economy through employment of private contractors and materials.

People are upset because they don't have money to spend so don't want their taxes raised, but that is a completely disingenuous argument. If you don't earn, you don't pay taxes. If you elect teabags or other Republicans and they get their way, we'll have a national sales tax instead of an income tax. This benefits the wealthy (poorer people tend to spend all of their income, the wealthy generally do not). The poorer you are, the more likely that you will spend every dime that you earn. If income taxes were abolished in favor of a national sales tax, people who currently pay no income tax, and a sales tax of perhaps 8.5%, will have to pay about 23% in sales taxes every time they spend if the likes of Rand Paul and his ilk have their way.

People say they know best what to do with their money, but government provides the social safety net, the social contract we make with each other. We pay taxes to cover these costs, pay for the poor and needy knowing that should we ever be in need, those services will be there for us. A teabag on "The Last Word" suggested that if the government did not return social security withholding to him, it would be stealing. Perhaps they would prefer a bill for defense, border control. the electric grid, other infrastructure, air traffic control, etc. I noticed that they all wanted to move programs to state control, which means that state level socialism is fine, just not federal. hmmm.

When people talk about the government's overreach and want less regulation, I have to ask, which regulations? Food safety? Air traffic control? The FDA? EPA? CDC? Some talk about doing away with the Dept. of Education, believing home schooling is the thing, or at least local standards, but what a disservice we do to those children as they try to compete in a national marketplace. When they try to attend college, they'll be severely limited. If they attend, for example, Oral Roberts U, they will be limited in their job search. Personally, I'm glad that someone is out there making sure that my food is safe, my medications are consistently made, and that when I fly, someone is keeping track.

I've spent hours over the past few days speaking with ultra right-wing family members and like many teabags, cannot get rational answers to simple questions. I give them data as I've listed above, and they argue, saying it's my opinion. I refer them to Dept. of Labor websites, they hem and haw. Tonight on "The Last Word," Lawrence O'Donnell had representatives of four teabag organizations. They all agreed that socialism was the biggest concern of their movements. (I always heard, at least at the beginning) that it was taxes. Oh well. It's obviously whatever is expedient at the moment. Anyway, it was immediately apparent and reinforced through O'Donnell's questioning that not one of them understood what socialism is. While talking to a cousin, she used the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, repeated the myths about Canadian-style health care, and reinforced my opinion that a party and group of parties that can love a book called by the oxymoronic "Liberal Fascism," is too stupid for the courtesy of debate.

The problem? These ignorant people will likely win enough seats to push this country over the edge into disaster, destroy the small strides President Obama has made towards restoring our good name, and take the rest of us along for the ride. The next time someone proposes de-regulation, or to repeal health care reform, ask them to define their terms. Define which regulation, which aspect of health care. I would bet that not one of them can be specific. None of the candidates are, so it is unlikely that their followers could be either.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Making Ignorance Chic & Some Fact-Based History

2010-10-20T12:49:00.000-07:00

IMAGE: Trever, Albuquerque Journal

I've always had mixed feelings about columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, believing that some times she was spot on, at others that she was so far out in the ozone that I wondered how she kept such prime real estate in the Times. Of course, anyone that writes regularly hopefully generates similar emotions in their readers as even negative reactions are a sign that there is some depth and energy to what is written. Her most recent column illustrates very well the problem with the current teabag belief in the need to be "just like you" and the reality of the history of our country.

In the Oct. 19, 2010 issue of the Times, Dowd writes of the change in our society as we seem to appreciate ignorance over education. Using Marilyn Monroe as an example, the comparison to Sarah Palin and other teabags is made, noting of Sarah Palin that:

"She says she believes in American exceptionalism. But when it comes to the people running the country, exceptionalism is suspect; leaders should be — as Palin, O’Donnell and Angle keep saying — just like you."

As Dowd notes, Marilyn was an intelligent woman posing as a dumb blond while reading Dostoyevsky and Proust (Russian and French authors respectively). She suffered from a disconnect between her public and private self, caused by a deeply self-reflective personality that she tried to self-medicate leading, ultimately, to her death.

I agree with Dowd that teabags, particularly Sarah Palin, trumpet their ignorance, a bizarre behavior for a woman constantly talking about "American exceptionalism." As I watch these people in action, Palin complains that Obama refuses to acknowledge this exceptionalism as he "kowtows" to foreign leaders. I am constantly puzzled at someone who is so proud of her ignorance yet demands that we maintain this position as the world leader and as we are, she says, better than anyone else. Never mind that it is exactly this attitude that adds to the negative image of America that we have enjoyed since Watergate days.

IMAGE: Dhonig, hypnocrite.blogspot.com

Exceptionalism requires that we be exceptional. We cannot just say it, we need to be it. Just as the teabags seem unable to define their proposed agenda, other than to decimate the Constitution, they are also seemingly unable to define just what are the factors that are important to them that make us exceptional. Palin et al sneer at "elites" which includes anyone from an ivy league school (except Joe Miller), disregarding the fact that President Obama is a classic example of the American dream. He may have attended an elite school, but it is our life in total - particularly the early days - that shapes our character and defines who we are.

I'm not sure how we have come to the point where ignorance is embraced and someone who is "just like you" is our best choice for high office. Certainly our government is designed on a foundation of citizen politicians, but I doubt that the current teabags understand that the citizen representatives in the days they claim to want to return to were not "just like you." People who were able to travel to Washington to serve in Congress were not ignorant. Education was valued and people who had the privilege of learning studied philosophy and literature, science as it was known at the time, and maintained a close connection with their European counterparts. Ignorance was not a value prized by the Founders.

In a time when only white, landowning men could run for office, sons were tutored at home, typically studying, in addition to math and reading and writing, science, Greek, Latin, geography, and history. Even this list is incomplete. In addition to this daylong, thorough education, boys frequently attended boarding school in England, and after completion, often trained as doctors or lawyers prior to returning to America to run their estates. Even then, there was an understanding of the complexity of our world, and the complexity of a democracy made up of a society that included people from varied backgrounds learning to come together. A reading of any early document shows clearly that education was highly valued by our founders. Just the complexity of the language used and the knowledge of law, philosophy, and history are clearly illustrated in the development of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I understand the disconnect that many people feel during these difficult times when those in Washington seem more and more enclosed in a bubble. When one has lost a job, a home, or is at risk of those losses, when you watch your neighbors experiencing the same, and all around you your world is changing in a direction that frightens you, it is easy to allow yourself to be manipulated by others who claim to have all the answers. We tend to believe people who are like us, so teabag candidates bend over backward trying to demonstrate how like "the people" they are. The phenomenal GOP public relations efforts of the past 40 years has done an excellent job of creating sound bites and buzzwords that appeal to our instant information culture. Conditioned to absorb information in 30-second ads and to understand an entire story in 46-minutes, people who are afraid are vulnerable to others with no moral compass. An attractive, charismatic women such as Sarah Palin turns her lack of intelligence, her ignorance, and her moral vacuum into a positive as she appeals to peoples' fears.

As Dowd said, back then, it "was cool to be smart." I believe that our Democratic leadership needs to come our of their bubble and understand that the teabags and others in the GOP have filled this need for reassurance in our country by taking the social problems in our country and making them positive campaign talking points, a truly remarkable feat.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
SOURCES:
The History of Education in America
Education in the Thirteen Colonies
American Education

Palin, Angle, Paul, Miller, & O'Donnell - What Do They Say About Us?

2010-10-19T15:31:00.000-07:00

IMAGE: Hebiclens Clown Collage/Mashup BoingBoing

Today's teabags are righteously indignant that the Democrats and bloggers and any journalist not on Fox is being mean. It is outrageous that anyone should expect them to open up their private lives or backgrounds to inspection and question their right to cast slurs and aspersions on their campaign opponents. They are so steadfast in their beliefs (although I have my doubts about that), that they think it is perfectly acceptable to override the will of the majority of the people and impose their narrow-minded, rigid ideologies on everyone else. Refusing to participate in the electoral process other than to demand that we just trust them, I am having a hard time understanding why they have so much support, or wonder if they really do. They refuse to talk to any but a select few in the media, and then only answer previously vetted questions. What do they say about us?

So my question is, why is this acceptable? They all campaign on their history, yet refuse to discuss it. They all campaign on their values, but refuse to share them unless you are an upper- or middle-class white person with a job, in which case they don't need to. Sarcasm, slurs, and put downs raise chuckles and they all think they're pretty cute, but only succeed in making this country look foolish, and even more so if they are actually elected.

Sarah Palin, when asked a perfectly reasonable (and common) question about where she gets her information immediately takes offense and sees it as an attempt to make her look like an uneducated hick (please refer to my earlier writings on projection). She attacks Michelle Obama for something said over two years ago, and misrepresents it at that.

Sarah Palin also complained a few days before the 2008 election that the media were attacking her and that they were violating her 1st Amendment rights, which were there to protect her from the media.

Sharon Angle says she will talk only to media who will ask her the questions that allow her to give out only the information she wants to give out and who will allow her to ask for contributions.

She also said, while speaking to a high school Latino club, that they didn't all look Hispanic, that some looked Asian.

IMAGE: Crooks & Liars

Rand Paul said he wasn't sure he would debate against someone who attacked his religion, and attacked his opponent for bringing up something that happened 30 years ago (although you will note, he did not deny the event). Interesting though that when Clinton came to campaign in Kentucky, Paul was comfortable bringing up Monica Lewinsky, something with great relevance to this election, especially as it happened so recently.

Joe Miller says he will no longer answer questions about his past or his personal life. [Although he did just admit to committing ethics violations.]

Each day brings up new information reaffirming the idea that Miller is about as ethical as other nationally prominent Alaska politicians. Today, a close examination of his (many, many months late) campaign disclosure forms show that he paid himself rent on office space that he owned (legal) that was up to four times what it was actually worth and paid himself a salary that was less than $10,000 (something that the IRS frowns on). Why is that a problem? He pays income tax on all income, but payroll tax only on salary. Pretty tricky accounting.

In a debate with Chris Coons, Christine O'Donnell appears shocked that the separation of church and state is a part of the 1st Amendment. Trying to walk back her gaffe, she and other GOPher apologists claim that she was correct because the exact wording "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution and that it was Coons who appeared ignorant because he could not name the five freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment as if that were the point of the exchange.

Sigh.

Sarah Palin recycles slurs and attacks from the 2008 campaign and complains about what she perceives as insults to her from that campaign in every speech and interview that she gives. If anyone has done anything recently to offend her, apparently her rage at President Obama's nerve at winning the election overrides that fact. It's too bad that it wasn't Todd Palin interested in politics as I believe that Sarah Palin would far prefer being First Lady than President. She has demonstrated an inability to actually perform work, a lack of intellectual curiosity (favored reading material OK Magazine? Favorite television show Bridezilla?), and rather than try to learn and understand complex issues facing our nation today, she becomes defensive when asked questions for which she has no answer. Her continued reference to having a "title" rather than holding an office suggest a fascination with her beauty pageant days that holds more interest than it probably should.

Sarah Palin gets (to her) ideas from one-note entertainers on Fox News, believing they hold great insight into governance, and disparages education, believing that ignorance is suggestive of "real" people regardless of the complexities involved in being a leader. To suggest that being on the city council and the mayor of a town of approximately 5,000 (and doing so badly), and then serving for one year on Alaska's Oil & Gas Commission (does anyone have any record of what she actually accomplished in that capacity? Meeting minutes maybe?), and two failed political campaigns as commensurate with serving three terms in the State Senate and then the United States Senate is on par with something a high school student might say prior to taking their required US Civ class.

Sharon Angle is a comical figure and I am amazed that she is in such a close race. Nevada reporter John Ralston said yesterday that her position in the race has nothing to do with her, but the state's displeasure with Harry Reid. Hopefully they'll wake up soon to what an Angle win will really mean. She claims God as her guide, yet displays herself as a mean, bitter woman willing to lie to get her own way. She is somehow of the opinion that hers is the only opinion that matters - a common failing of teabags and Republicans everywhere. A majority of the country decided that they didn't like the policies of the Republicans so voted them out. The willingness of the GOPhers to lie, manipulate, and ignore the needs of their constituents has created an environment that allowed a small minority to shout so loudly that the national media, also responding to their corporate masters, manipulate the news to suggest that most of the country is dissatisfied with the direction of the new administration.

Rand Paul has the thinnest skin I have seen on a politician and I thought no one could top Sarah Palin. After his debate with Conway, he sounded like the little boy crying that he was going to take his ball and go home because someone was mean to him. That's what politics is. It's dirty and it's nasty. The people decide how much they're willing to put up with and politicians ignore them at their peril, although with a newly activist Supreme Court determined to legislate from the bench, we now have a government that will be determined by whomever has the most money and therefore the loudest voice. To say that politicians such as Paul feel comfortable saying some of the outrageous things that he does is truly remarkable yet bizarre that he can't take any of the heat.

Probably the most ludicrous figure of this election season is Christine O'Donnell. Each time I think I can't hear anything worse, I hear something worse. It's not just the bizarre statements, but her lack of self-awareness to understand how she is being perceived. During the debate with Coons in which she demonstrated her lack of understanding of the Constitution, she thought the audience was laughing with her, at Coons (they weren't). Every time I hear her, she seems a step off and I wonder that her followers don't see it (of course, why they can't see the other teabags either I can't fathom). Today in Michelle Malkin's blog (no, I won't link), she claims that it is Coons who does not understand the Constitution.

While debating at a law school, O'Donnell went on and on about her superior knowledge of the Constitution, yet when asked by the moderator about the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, she had to ask what each of them was about because she didn't have her copy of the Constitution with her. First of all, one principal planks of the teabag movement is the Constitution and she is appearing at a law school. O'Donnell has, repeatedly, claimed her superior knowledge of application of the Constitution. Wouldn't you think that she would bone up on the three amendments that are at the core of the teabag movement or at least bring her copy of the Constitution with her? Or write it on her hand? 14th (immigration), 16th (income tax), 17th (senate). Easy, should fit on anyone's hand.

Forgetting, as they all do, that there is video all over the web, O'Donnell and her cohorts have tried to re-write the event. What they've done, is taken everything out of context, something they claim as a tactic of the left. Replying to a discussion of schools teaching creationism and intelligent design, Coons stated that it was a violation of the separation of church and state. O'Donnell replied that he just demonstrated his ignorance of the Constitution if he thought that it said that local school boards could not decide to teach anything they wanted to teach, and he then brought up the 1st Amendment. Within the context of the discussion, the exact phrasing and whether or not it appears in the document is a moot point. The whole debate was in a similar vein, with O'Donnell displaying her ignorance as she also displayed her rudeness talking over Coons attempts to answer not only the moderator's questions, but hers.

I haven't had much time to blog every day, but between now and the election I am going to try to write about each of the major components of the campaign. I know many teabags, and this election, am no longer able to remain silent when I hear people repeating outrageous claims that are easily disproved. People who are unwilling to listen to facts and insist on holding on to their beliefs because they like the person who says them or because the individual belongs to the correct religion or party is dangerous to this country and I for one, am not keeping quiet regardless of the personal consequences.

The fact that these, and other teabag races, are so close says as much about us as it does about them. A few years ago, these people would have gotten no traction. The media would have been all over the inconsistencies and when caught in the lies, these people would have been forced to drop out of their respective races. Many, if not all of them, probably do not believe half of what they say, but simply want either the attention, the adulation, or the money that they know they will receive once they reach national political office, and then retire. Doesn't say much about us does it?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney, Please Go Away, & Sarah, The Tillmans Are Atheists, Don't Pray for Them

2010-10-17T16:19:00.000-07:00

IMAGE: Unknown (numerous sources)

What is so remarkable, is that not only are people on the right ignorant of the true agenda of the Republican Party - that being to send as many jobs overseas as possible and reduce the costs of the jobs that remain here - but within two short years, they have forgotten everything that went on before. On CBS Face the Nation this morning during an exchange between Liz Cheney, Howard Dean, Lindsey Graham, and Bill Galston, Bob Schieffer asked each whether this election was a referendum on President Obama or a referendum on the economy. To paraphrase Liz, the president no longer gives "big vision speeches" because he somehow knows that we no longer want to go where he wants to lead. Lindsey Graham faced the camera and told us that people were scared and that "all this spending is not what people expected from this president." He says that two weeks before the election, most people are running against the "Obama takeover of most of society." He goes on to say that, "If he had governed like he had campaigned" there would be no problem (sure think Linds) and "This is an overreach." Graham says that this overreach includes health care, the stimulus, and regulation of Wall Street, as do many others campaigning from the right. Take a look at the video here.

First, why is Liz Cheney there? Are these men offended to have to sit and have these debates with her? Although, probably a lot less offended than Harry Reid is to have to debate Sharon Angle or Mike Castle having to appear on the tv machine with fruit-loop in training (medical terminology), Christine O'Donnell. Liz Cheney's total credentials to have these conversations is that her father was a politician. She is referenced as a "previous state department official," but she was a mid-level manager of a small unit. She had no diplomatic brief, foreign policy assignments, nor involvement in policy matters. Her position was administrative, and administrative at a mid-level only. Certainly as a citizen and one who has involved herself in politics, she has opinions and ideas as do all of us who maintain a deep involvement in world and national affairs, but to be given this level of credibility and gravitas is breathtaking. I expect it from Fox, but the networks? Anyway.

Back to the issues. "All of this spending." Hmmm. Would he be referring to TARP perhaps? Or perhaps the stimulus? Those two bills that had full Republican support? The ones that were watered down to meet Republican demands? The ones that were from the, horrors, Bush Administration? The ones that John McCain suspended his campaign so that he could run back to Washington and organize (of course with BFF Lindsey Graham)? Or maybe it's the fact that for the first time since George and Dick took us into a war of revenge and aggression, allowing our actual enemies to escape, President Obama included the cost of the war in the budget that he sent to Congress, something that Bush never did. To pay for the war, Bush pretended it did not exist, for budget purposes, and then paid for it through supplementals. Obama actually wrote a budget that reflected reality. Of course our deficits took a huge hit after that.

And what about health care you say? The one that Graham and others say Americans don't want? That Obama didn't run on? Not sure where you were Lindsey, but on Jan. 25, 2007, USA Today quoted Obama as saying that universal healthcare would be a "very major part of my campaign." If there is any disappointment about health care and voices saying they don't want it (apart from the teabags, all 11% of them according to a Sept. survey) it is from progressives and other Democrats disappointed that President Obama negotiated away universal health care and began the discussions so low, that the final product while better than nothing, is still far from what is needed.When people - even Republicans - are asked if they are even favor of the individual elements of the health care bill, they are universally in favor of them. It is just when they are asked about some over-arching "health care reform" or "Obamacare" that they fall back on talking point responses that they have been programmed with by Fox News. As far as spending, I note that no Republican (and unfortunately, very few Democrats) are campaigning on the money that we will save over time by this health care bill and the reduction in the total deficit in the past year. Nor are they comparing job growth numbers of the previous presidents (George W had the least of any president since WWII) and the difference between Democratic and Republican administrations when it came to actual job numbers.

My point? To quote Tip O'Neal, "You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts." People who insist on their own version of reality regardless of statistics, evidence, facts, or other demonstrations of reality are the ones living on a unicorn ranch in fantasy land. To expect everything to be fixed immediately is unrealistic and unfair. Unfortunately, they are trying to force the rest of us in the reality-based world to live there with them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sarah Palin, Praying is Offensive to an Atheist, & Really, 2008 Stuff? That's It?

IMAGE: indiedesign

So here's the thing. Sarah Palin has twice this week referenced comments made by Michelle Obama during the 2008 campaign as if she made them last week, and taken them out of context. Whining that she has obviously not met a soldier if she is only now proud of being an American. Mrs. Obama has, several times, explained that she was referring to the excitement and numbers of young people turning out to vote and volunteer for the Obama campaign. If one didn't know better (and I would bet that most of Palin's bots don't), they would think that these are all things that have happened in the past week or two.

More sickening, in a speech in San Jose, Sarah brought up Pat Tillman since she was in his hometown. Assuming, as she does, that because he gave up a multi-million dollar football career to volunteer for the military, and died in Iraq, that he and his family would want us to thank God every day for his sacrifice for our freedom.

Does she think we're idiots (don't answer, of course she does - she thinks everyone is just like her). Pat Tillman may have thought he was going to fight for our freedom, but he did not. He went to stroke the egos of little men who were too cowardly to serve their country and were petrified after 9/11 and lashed out without thought. They then saw an opportunity to take us into a war they had been planning since the early 90's, and when Mr. Tillman was killed by friendly fire, lied to his family and to us and as usual, manipulated the news to create a climate that would allow them to continue their need to play war when they were too cowardly to be real soldiers. Every time Sarah Palin gives a speech, she brings up the military as if she has a little checklist to cover; God, check, military, check, lamestream media, check, pregnancy, check, Democrat Party, check.

As someone who has studied psychology, sociology, social psychology, and is a trained counselor, I have to say that I am fascinated watching this woman. People who speak in buzzwords and use slurs to demean their opponents say far more about themselves than they do about anyone else. Sarah Palin's use of the term Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party is juvenile, as is her use of the term lamestream media. She thinks it's cute or amusing to coin these catchphrases, hoping that they will be associated with her (they are) not realizing that there are catchphrases and then there are catchphrases. Ones that we might use in middle school come across far differently then ones we might coin as a grownup. All Sarah Palin does is succeed in demonstrating that her emotional and social maturity is locked at about age 13 (witness her use of the term title rather than office - it's her beauty queen mentality). Her history of holding grudges and ensuring that anyone who "crosses" her is made to pay (and really, what does that mean? Cross. In what world does everyone, all the time, agree? Just in Palin world).

Much of what she does and says is the result of losing the 2008 election (although she didn't actually lose. McCain did). She has a real, deeply held anger towards President Obama for his temerity at winning the election. What is extremely bizarre, is that she is in a never-ending spiral that I am still waiting for her bots to recognize. Tillman, a comment by Michelle Obama over two years ago, talking about reading material and "journalists who ask about it" refusing to name Katie Couric (anyone who asks a reasonable question is attacking her or playing gotcha). And really, does she not realize how offensive it is to ask everyone to pray for an atheist? Or to reference God in any way in relation to Pat Tillman's service or death?

And the other teabag candidates have a similar pattern. What is disappointing is that over and over again, whenever asked a question, a teabag candidate replies that it isn't about them, it is about their opponent. It's about the issues. The only problem? If it's about the opponent, shouldn't they be willing to let us know how they are different? If it's about the issues, shouldn't they be willing to let us know what they would do differently? Unfortunately, the media seems willing to let them get away with just about anything and too many of us are willing to go along.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Another Chapter in Serial Stupidity - Jonah Goldberg, Serial Idiot on Elitism

2010-10-13T13:16:00.000-07:00

Jonah Goldberg is such a rich source of material although I write about him infrequently as I hate to give him and his delusions too much importance. Making the leap from his so-called expertise on affirmative action and all things racial, Goldberg ties those beliefs to elitism. He takes issue with progressive concern over the teabags' rage against the elites who, according to him, want to "boss us around." From Media Matters, Jonah is quoted as saying:

"To date, I've seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who've emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren't bossing anybody around."

In Tuesday's Washington Post, Anne Applebaum writes about the teabaggers' "anti-elite" rage. Applebaum illuminates the growing resentment of the Ivy-League educated by teabags by saying:

"...Nowadays, successful Americans, however ridiculously lucky they have been, often smugly see themselves as "deserving." Meanwhile, the less successful are more likely to feel it's their own fault -- or to feel that others feel it's their fault -- even if they have simply been unlucky..."

To paraphrase Applebaum's point, when Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and others call people elitist, they are usually referring to people they don't like, don't agree with, and who don't agree with them. I would add that after all, Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller is a Harvard graduate --an education that is about the most elite possible-- and he would be nowhere without the backing of Sarah Palin. O'Donnell is in trouble partially because of her claims --false-- that she is a graduate of Columbia graduate school. So, fairly good evidence of the validity of Applebaum's claim if teabags feel the need to claim an ivy-league education, true or not.

A point that is brought out in Applebaum's piece, is that the American dream that we are all raised with is the same one that is held against many of those who today most exemplify that dream. We are taught that we can be anything we want, do anything we want, and that we are limited only by our willingness to work hard. Unfortunately, I believe that this dream has caused more harm than good over time as conversely, it tells us that if we do not succeed, that it is our own fault --something that as a sociologist I can say is often not true. Yet, here we have a president who is the embodiment of the American dream, the true rags to riches story, yet considered by the right to be the most elite of the elite.

In his quite derisive piece, Goldberg begins by setting a tone that attacks Applebaum personally before he even starts his analysis of her argument. Referencing a stand she took on an unrelated issue, he conflates the two to suggest that since she has a (to him) inappropriate belief in one area, it carries over to all of her opinions. Goldberg says that use of the term "ivy league" is code for elitism (good to know) and that progressives have it backwards when they see complaints about progressive goals as attacks against the ivy-league elite. Huh? Both Goldberg and Will Collier who he quotes in his update state that Applebaum is clearly biased (she is a Yale graduate) and that her thesis is that only those with an ivy-league education are intelligent. I must say that after reading her piece several times as I write this, I fail to come to that conclusion and believe me, one of the things you must learn in any college education (full disclosure, I went to a state university), is to discover the thesis behind any piece of writing.

Goldberg says:

"For Applebaum, the fact that the elite graduated from top-tier schools is all the proof she needs that these people deserve to be in charge. Indeed, Applebaum — without a moment’s pause to cite any evidence — insists that universities have diversified without dropping standards at all. (But I don’t want to have an argument about quotas and all that, because it’s a distraction from my real objection)."

Then don't bring them (quotas) up. I am so tired of the continuing belief that affirmative action included quotas. It did not. In fact, quotas were illegal. I wrote a thesis on affirmative action and feel somewhat qualified to speak to the right's deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose behind affirmative action and its policies, and the truly ridiculous notion that one generation or less was sufficient to redress the inequities of 300 years. Anyway. I'm not finding where she says that only the "fact" that the elite graduated from "top-tier" schools makes them deserving of being in charge. And, you shouldn't demand that others include evidence in their work when you do not include it in yours.

What is truly bizarre, is that the teabags resent the educated, calling them elite, equating them with an ivy-league education when in fact, what they resent is the education, period. In the past, the ivy-leagues were available only to those with the proper pedigree regardless of SAT's, community service, or gradepoint average (think George W). As a result of affirmative action, it was the ivy-leagues who offered the most in response and thus created the most diverse alumni --people who came from all races and ethnicities, and social classes. The graduates of the ivy-leagues over the past 40 years are truly representative of the American dream that is so hard to reach for most.

Trying to explain what it is the teabags are angry about when they complain about elitism, Goldberg says of Applebaum: [emphasis added]

"She doesn’t seem to grasp, let alone acknowledge, that it’s only one subset of Ivy Leaguers that seems to bother anybody on the right: the lawyer-social engineers-journalist-activists they churn out by the boatload. No one begrudges kids who’ve made good from tough backgrounds. What bothers lots of Americans is when those kids then think they are entitled to cajole, nudge, command and denigrate the rest of America. To date, I’ve seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who’ve emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren’t bossing anybody around."

This last is so breathtaking I almost don't know where to begin. "No one begrudges kids who've made good from tough backgrounds." Umm. Okay. Unless you're President Obama or a Democrat.

He goes on to say:

"...it is the agenda of a very specific and very self-styled elite, not the existence of an elite that is pissing so many people off. Some of the angriest and most dedicated people I meet at Tea Party events are quite wealthy and successful, often with shiny educations equal to Applebaum’s. What infuriates them is that they see a country that once determined merit in the market place or in civil society, becoming a country where what counts as merit is determined by government directly, or indirectly."

What does that mean? Merit was determined "in the market place or in civil society." When? Okay. I understand the market place, but civil society? I guess he's saying that if you exhibit the correct values (conservative perhaps?) then you have merit? And where does he get that merit is determined by government directly or indirectly? What does that mean? And what does he mean by "what counts as merit?" Perhaps Jonah doesn't understand definitions. Merit:

Noun - something that deserves a reward, or the the fact of deserving
Verb - deserve
Adjective - based on (ie a raise)

Pretty clear to me. Of course, this idea is one of the primary distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, including teabags. Republicans equate success with money in the bank and morality with church attendance and how much they tithe. Democrats equate success with personal fulfillment and satisfaction and morality with how one makes choices when no one else is looking. Granted, hugely generalized, but you are unlikely to find someone with the later values in the Republican Party or vice versa. Look at this campaign. The 1st Amendment was designed to protect the media from government so that we the people may have the information we need in order to make good decisions about who to elect to represent us, the theory then being that those running for office (and holding office) have an obligation to provide that information. Right? Now, we have teabags who refuse to talk to the media unless they can solicit funds and control the questions. A true return to our Constitutional roots as demanded by the teabags would be a requirement that they stop running away from the media and actually present their policy ideas. Radical concept, I know.

Anyway. Jonah is an interesting character and believes himself to be an expert on affirmative action and has written extensively on that subject. Trying to style himself as an academic type, Goldberg is the author of the oxymoronically titled "Liberal Fascism" and weighed in during the Sotomayor hearings. His "expertise" on affirmative action was highly valued by the extremist right as they used the very program designed to help her and others succeed, to attempt to disallow that success. His comments on affirmative action parroted the continuing Republican mantra of reverse discrimination that hurts those poor, white men. You can read more about it here.

A few days after his intrusion into the Sotomayor affair, Goldberg, suddenly an expert on foreign affairs and the middle east, wrote about what President Obama should do about the situation taking place at that time in Iran (this was during the protests during the summer of 2009). As I pointed out at the time, Goldberg holds a prime position on my serial idiots list.

What are the teabags really doing? In blaming the elitists who are trying to "boss us around" and equating anyone with an ivy-league education as an elitist, they are refusing to acknowledge those who are the embodiment of the American dream if that dream culminates in progressive ideals. Sure there are elites, and there are elites who are graduates of ivy-league schools. But what is truly the definition of an elite? Personally, I believe it is someone who is admitted to an ivy-league school because of their family background and maintains their place despite near failing grades (George W) or believes that because of what they have they are somehow special.

Teabags are really attacking progressive ideals, and equate elitism with being told what to do. They are angry with a government interfering in their lives and telling them what to do and conflate those in government who hold ideas and make policy decisions they don't like with those with a good education because we now have a president they don't like who went to an ivy-league school. My question? A government that wants to move into my bedroom, doctor's office, and re-write scientific texts to match a minority point of view is far more intrusive than a government that is there to provide for the public welfare. I reject, again, Goldberg's premise and his and the teabags continuing attempts to build strawmen (see Fallacies above) rather than address the actual issues.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Comparing Voting Machines to Slot Machines

2010-10-13T09:47:00.000-07:00

Image: fukung.net

As we approach the election and consider all the lies and distortions presented as reasons to vote for a teabag (for example), this is a reminder of all the problems from the last election that were forgotten as soon as the votes were counted. Let's make sure that the margins are wide enough that GOP manipulation does not work.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

How Congress Keeps Its Foot On The Executive Branch

2010-10-12T12:53:00.000-07:00

Truly excellent and important quote today from Ezra Klein at the Washington Post:

"It's so easy to narrativize American politics through the person of the president, but it's just a wildly misleading way to understand why things do or don't happen."

Speaking to Steve Rattner, the man President Obama selected to be the "auto-czar" and who was responsible for not only salvaging the auto industry, but leaving GM in a position where they are now adding hundreds of workers and showing a profit.

In a 2-part interview, the first printed today, Klein and Rattner discuss "... how Congress keeps its foot on the Executive Branch."

Interesting and worth the read.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Get Out the Vote Poster - It's in the Asterisk

2010-10-12T12:25:00.000-07:00

Click on the image for a larger view. (h/t Rachel Maddow)

Go here to download this or four other get-out-the-vote posters created by Patrick Mullins of Seattle. His idea:

This is a series of "get out the vote" posters I'm working on producing and distributing somehow. My father said to me "there is a myth, of what America is, being created by the extreme right, but it is not the true America." He's smart and he's right, so I'm trying to do what I can to make sure the definition of America isn't distorted by a few loud voices.

Maybe these can help in some small way.

If the teabags win, it will be out of the ignorance and fear of a small minority of voters. We will get what we deserve for staying home and not motivating our friends and family to vote (and vote Democratic!) but the lesson learned will be purchased at too high a price.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Hey Teabags, Pledge of Allegiance Written to Embody Socialist Utopian Ideal. Attorney Arrested for Refusing to Pledge.

2010-10-07T20:05:00.000-07:00

Image: oilempire.us

The Teabags have been waving the 10th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, and now, are once again attacking the favorite target of the extreme right, the 1st Amendment and our freedom of speech. Remember, it was Sarah Palin who said that it was the Constitutional protections provided by the 1st Amendment that protected her from the media (this during her campaign when she was a government official). Our favorite teabags, Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell, have been seen running away from media in order to ensure their protection from the media which, of course, they have the right to do. Bizarre. But their right. Unfortunately, our elected officials, including those running for office, have an obligation to answer our questions. This is why the 1st Amendment was included in the Constitution; to protect the media from the government, but that's another issue. Once again, the Pledge of Allegiance is in the news and once again, it is being held up as the yardstick by which many measure one's patriotism or the lack thereof. And once again, even those who are supposed to know the law do not seem to understand that it is optional.

Full disclosure. I am a Quaker. We do not swear on Bible's or other religious tomes, take oaths, or pledge allegiance to anything.

What many people do not understand, is that the freedom that allows the teabags to rally against "Obamacare," and wave truly repugnant signs depicting hateful and racist imagery of the President, is the same freedom that allows people to choose not to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

On Oct. 6, 2010, an attorney by the name of Danny Lampley was arrested while in court in Tupelo, Mississippi. The judge requested that everyone present stand and say the pledge, and when Mr. Lampley refused, he was arrested. He was released five hours later, but told that he could have the contempt citation purged when he returned to the courtroom and said the pledge. This was not the first time that this attorney had had a run-in with this judge about this issue as discussed here

A resident of Tupelo, a Bobby Martin, was quoted as saying:
"If he can't say that in front of a judge, he don't deserve to be here" in this country."

Certainly, Mr. Martin has the freedom to say this, but come on, people who rant at others for simply expressing a different belief are no less American and when these people suggest they don't deserve to be here, where should they go?

If this situation in Mississippi were an isolated one, I'd let it go without comment, but there is an ongoing pattern here, and with teabags saying increasingly kooky things and actually appearing to have some traction, I'm concerned when my rights and freedoms are being attacked. One of the reasons that I write this blog is to illuminate issues that I believe are not given enough media notice.

In 2009, the ACLU who battles these cases had to contact the Hubbard, Ohio high school authorities and remind them of the right of a student to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance after she had been disciplined on more than one occasion. A simple Google search brings back numerous instances of, usually schools, misunderstanding their authority over students relative to the pledge, and numerous instances of the courts upholding the rights of individuals to refuse to stand and/or recite the pledge without penalty.

Know what's really amusing about all of this? Back in 1892, a man named Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister wrote the pledge. His cousin, Edward, had written some books about utopian socialism, and Francis attempted to embody that philosophy in his pledge. Mr. Bellamy considered himself a Christian socialist. Francis preached, and Edward wrote, about their belief in a country centered around a society in which everyone was equal in a planned social, political, and economic structure. They suggested that the role of government would be to run an economy similar to a military industrial complex.

The original pledge contained the words "my flag" and nothing about God. At the National Flag Conferences held in 1923 and 1924, "my flag" was changed to "the flag." After a campaign engineered by the Knights of Columbus, in 1954 Congress added the words "under God."

With the extreme rights paranoia of socialism and Beck preaching against social justice, and any governmental program that might appear to serve the disadvantaged, it's kind of ironic that it was two men writing of a socialist, utopian ideal who created our Pledge of Allegiance.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Matt Taibbi Attends Palin Rally & Explains Teabags

2010-10-02T16:33:00.000-07:00

Illustration by Victor Juhasz

Truly remarkable article in the October 15 issue of Rolling Stone by Matt Taibbi. Called Tea and Crackers, Taibbi discusses his exploration of the Tea Party, what it is, who its members are, and what they truly stand for.

The article is quite lengthy but well worth the read. Several points are worth special note, however. [All emphasis added] After making three trips to Kentucky, Taibbi attends a Sarah Palin rally:

"Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn't a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — "Government's not the solution! Government's the problem!" — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains."

[...]

"A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can't imagine it."

The money quote?

"...Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about ..."

[...]

"Suddenly, tens of thousands of Republicans who had been conspicuously silent during George Bush's gargantuan spending on behalf of defense contractors and hedge-fund gazillionaires showed up at Tea Party rallies across the nation, declaring themselves fed up with wasteful government spending"

[...]

Much of the article is a discussion of Rand Paul and his transformation from a fringe candidate to a candidate truly of the GOP when he won the primary, and the genesis of the movement created by money interested in manipulating people dissatisfied with the results of the 2008 elections.

"After nearly a year of talking with Tea Party members from Nevada to New Jersey, I can count on one hand the key elements I expect to hear in nearly every interview. One: Every single one of them was that exceptional Republican who did protest the spending in the Bush years, and not one of them is the hypocrite who only took to the streets when a black Democratic president launched an emergency stimulus program. ("Not me — I was protesting!" is a common exclamation.) Two: Each and every one of them is the only person in America who has ever read the Constitution or watched Schoolhouse Rock. (Here they have guidance from Armey [of Freedom Works, the corporate funder/creator of the tea party movement and anti-health care movement], who explains that the problem with "people who do not cherish America the way we do" is that "they did not read the Federalist Papers.") Three: They are all furious at the implication that race is a factor in their political views — despite the fact that they blame the financial crisis on poor black homeowners, spend months on end engrossed by reports about how the New Black Panthers want to kill "cracker babies," support politicians who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an overreach of government power, tried to enact South African-style immigration laws in Arizona and obsess over Charlie Rangel, ACORN and Barack Obama's birth certificate. Four: In fact, some of their best friends are black! (Reporters in Kentucky invented a game called "White Male Liberty Patriot Bingo," checking off a box every time a Tea Partier mentions a black friend.) And five: Everyone who disagrees with them is a radical leftist who hates America."

[...]

And my favorite quote, speaking as it does to my professional opinion:

"It would be inaccurate to say the Tea Partiers are racists. What they are, in truth, are narcissists..."

I have quoted at length from this article, however, I would strongly encourage you to read it in its entirety and share it with your friends. I made sure to share it on Facebook hoping all the teabags in my extended family will take a look...

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Limbaugh Demonstrates His Developmental Age of 3

2010-10-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: deceiver.com

Lot's of discussion lately about sexuality and Republicans, especially the extremist right wing of the party. Recent polls have suggested that more and more Republicans identify themselves as members of the Teaparty. Rush Limbaugh, the self-elected head of the Republican Party has, once again, demonstrated his psychosexual developmental age of 3. Remaining in the anal stage long into adulthood, Rush's fixation on anal poisoning, degrading women, and all matters sexual are odd - to say the least - when lined up beside the female (Christian) candidates he demands that we vote for.

There are no polls asking how many people actually agree with the particular views held by, for instance, Christine O'Donnell or Sharon Angle, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio, but approval ratings are a somewhat good indicator. What is clear, however, is that with pundits and talk show entertainers throwing their full support behind any candidate who is not a Democrat or a liberal regardless of their positions (now that the primaries have weeded out many moderates in an effort to "purify" the party), it is an interesting paradox to listen to someone like Rush Limbaugh preaching his filth while issuing demands for support and adulation for teabag candidates.

The most extreme of the teabag candidates, O'Donnell and Angle claim God as their campaign manager so it is particularly curious to juxtapose Limbaugh's filth to their supposed morality. I say supposed, as members of the Christian right talk a lot about people who "say" they're Christian (Paul and Angle, for example) but are really not. Unfortunately, I agree with them, however, my yardstick is a little different. When I was growing up, the evangelicals, pentacostalists, and fundamentalists were the "fringies." People who wore their religiosity so loudly and publicly were considered a little "out there," and such concepts as loving thy neighbor as thyself, charity, and social justice were important - even dominant - parts of church doctrine. My, how things change.

Morality then, was how you made your decisions, how you made choices when nobody was looking, and the underlying integrity that guided your life. Church attendance, how much you tithed, and how often you went (or even if you did) to Bible study were secondary. Nobody needed to "be saved" to be a Christian and nobody had to publicly accept Jesus in order to prove anything. Faith was between you and your God, or for Catholics, between you and your priest. Somehow, a few branches of the enormous religion that is Christianity have taken over and try to dictate to everyone else what Christianity is or isn't. That said, I haven't observed anyone in politics or the media spouting their Christian values who actually lives them. Should it be a factor in their political lives? No. Their integrity, yes, but many atheists have more integrity in their little finger than do those banging the drum for returning us to a so-called Christian nation.

Sorry. There was a point to all of this but perhaps a little more than necessary. Anyway.

Rush Limbaugh. Republicans. Certainly there have been Democrats who have done equally bad things (John Edwards, for example). However, you rarely see a Democrat run on a family values platform or tout his or her morality or purity as a reason for deserving your vote. Most Democrats in Congress tend to stay married in fact (how many times has Rush been married?). Republicans, however, seem supremely capable of staring into the tv machine and flat out lying. When caught lying, they express no embarrassment. But seriously. Sanford, Vitter, Ensign, Gingrich, and Clinton's impeachment hearing. How many of the House Managers were caught having affairs during the hearings? Two actually, although other prominent politicians calling for the impeachment had less than stellar records themselves. Of immediate interest, the then Majority Leader, Newt Gingrich was also having an affair. So. Moral values anyone? This "purity" test that the Republicans are using to weed out the chaff in the party has nothing to do with purity. To them, purity means taxes. Period. No taxes, pure. Taxes, impure.

As we get closer to the mid-terms, and President Obama embarks on a campaign tour to try to generate voter enthusiasm (where has that man been for the past 20 months?), the talk show entertainers are ramping it up and throwing everything they have at him. Obama's approval ratings though low, are still significantly higher than his disapproval ratings. On issues, only 23% of Americans want abortion banned in all cases although this is a favorite cause of the teabags. Yet, the attacks continue and become more and more personal and more and more vicious. It's not about issues, because they have nothing to say about them. Despite what they say and want to believe, Americans do not want them to overturn healthcare, do away with social security or medicare, or do away with government, but the Democrats are letting the extreme right rant unanswered.

Rush Limbaugh had, for awhile, refrained from one of his more colorful phrases, but no longer. Referring to the President, he said on his radio show Wednesday:

"...he's got a press that's going to die of anal poisoning if he keeps this up. What in the world does Obama have to be disappointed about? He bows to other leaders because in his heart of hearts he thinks he should be bowed to. He's trying to show other people how he should be treated."

From Quizlaw posted here during the 2008 campaign, Limbaugh

"... has suggested that he’d rather see a Democrat blamed for the direction the country is heading toward (thanks G.W.) than vote for McCain. But, yesterday on his radio show, he dropped this little bon mot:

Limbaugh was ranting against Sen. John McCain ... when a caller asked whether he thought McCain would pick Sen. Lindsey Graham as his running mate. Limbaugh doubted it, though he admitted: “I may be wrong … Lindsey Graham is certainly close enough to [McCain] to die of anal poisoning.”

At Rawstory, David Edwards wrote about one of Keith Olbermann's "worst persons" segments on the subject here:

"Keith Olbermann names Rush Limbaugh one of the world’s worst people for saying that an HBO special about President Barack Obama should get “anal poisoning.” In fact, notes Olbermann, Limbaugh has mentioned “anal poisoning” 13 times in the past 2 years. Limbaugh has referenced “men bending over and grabbing their ankles” 19 times. Olbermann suggests that Limbaugh could have a medical condition that lead to his fascination with that region of the body."

Back in the early days of the Obama presidency, Jason Linkins in Huffington Post, wrote of the LA Times' Andrew Klavan daring people to find instances of hateful or racist speech on Limbaugh's show, only to have Rush come out with his rant against then British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown in which he says:

"...if the British Prime Minister keeps "slobbering" over President Barack Obama, he'll "come down with anal poisoning and may die from it."

Wondering what he means by that term, Linkins opines:

"What does that even mean? Is anal poisoning contagious? Apparently, the term is common on porn websites, ..."

Stephen Colbert provides probably the best definition at Wikiality which says:

Anal Poisoning (rectal problem)

1. an affliction characterized by an abundance of semi-synthetic opiopoid oid analgesics affecting the nether regions. It is highly contagious, but is only deadly to those allergic to the firm buttocks of his fellow man

Synonym: Dominican's Obsession, OxyContin Whirlpool
[edit] See Also

* Santorum *
* tea bagging *

[editor: * Warning: sexually explicit descriptions]

I wrote about this subject back in May 2009 here. What I discovered as I researched that article was that:

"If you were to go to Google and enter the search term "anal poisoning" as I just did, it would return 587,000 hits in 0.82 seconds. To be honest, I did not check every single citation, however, I did a scan through many pages to the end of the list. Every time anal and poisoning were side by side (you know how Google will return results where the 2 search terms appear close together), the reference always includes Rush Limbaugh."

[...]

At the time, I suggested that he was a gift to the Democratic Party with his use of all things anal and his treatment of women:

"Can't they see the theme here? Rush clearly has a fixation on all things anal. In psychology, Freud would have had a field day with him. The progression through the various stages of life is important to understanding the human psyche. We have typically moved beyond the anal stage by the age of 2 or 3 and it is directly related to psychosexual development. Although Freud is now considered passe, his theories of development do inform our understanding of the processes of development. The fact that Rush appears obsessed by race, women, sex, and all things anal combined with his need to be the center of attention suggest someone with some serious issues, which should concern the leadership of the Republican Party if this is the man who is setting their agenda. Personally, I find him mean-spirited and somewhat sad, and an on-going gift to the Democratic agenda."

But, once again, the Democrats are unwilling to use what is given to them and explore what might save them. The teabags are extremists who want to hurt the people most likely to give them their vote. Democrats refuse to advertise that. They, in not wanting to stoop to the level of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, allow his filth to permeate the airwaves unanswered and too many ignorant people still believe the old saw that "where there is smoke, there's fire." Wrong, but there it is.

We need to stay in touch with our leaders and ask that they remind voters of the accomplishments of the Democratic Party, remind people that this administration has accomplished more than any other president has by this time in his first term, and remind people that a vote for a Republican or a teabag, means a return to the circumstances that caused the economic meltdown of 2008. They need to remind progressives that regardless of our disappointments, we cannot afford to stay home on November 10. People need especially, to be instructed on basic economics 101 and how stimulus really works. And we need to continue to compare and contrast the words of Rush Limbaugh and his delightful imagery to the supposed values of the people he supports.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

"...the Mad Dr. Palinstein's Creation Goes Missing"

2010-09-30T16:57:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: oliver willis

Andy Ostroy writes today at Huffington Post about the presence in Delaware, or lack thereof, of Christine O'Donnell since the primary elections have been held. [emphasis added]

"She's scarcer than an Osama bin Laden video. Harder to find than Waldo. The burning question in Delaware these days is, "Where's Christine?" As the NY Times reported Thursday, the state's cracked-Tea-Pot Senate candidate, Christine O'Donnell, is apparently in hiding. And why not? She's terrified of opening her mouth in public. I guess those grass roots have rotted."

"Since beating her Republican rival Mike Castle in the recent primary by just 3500 votes, O'Donnell has had virtually zero presence in the state. No events planned. No campaign office. And most of her funds have come from out-of-state donors. If you're a Delawarean and you'd like to ask her about the issues and her positions, good luck."

"A tax cheatin', tuition welchin', home foreclosin', education lyin', non-masturbatin', evolution-refutin', "mice- with-fully-functioning- human-brains" stem-cell-hatin' Tea Bagger, O'Donnell's a candidate in the clone-mode of her creator and mentor, the mad Dr. Palinstein. They're both cute, perky, full of Fox News-worthy snarky soundbites and not a lick of substance between them. O'Donnell's main strategy? Hope voters are just plain stupid and will vote for her in an unprecedented knowledge vacuum. Same goes for Kentucky's Rand Paul, Nevada's Sharron Angle and Alaska's Joe Miller, her fellow Tea Bag, gag-ordered, all-stars."

"With all their big talk of "taking back America" with a bold new plan, they sure as hell are utterly terrified to go before voters and the press to articulate what it is any of them truly stand for."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sharon Angle is Evil

2010-09-27T17:08:00.000-07:00

Sharon Angle is evil. Sarah Palin is an idiot, but Angle is evil. How else can one explain the following? [emphasis added]

“We know that if we could have that affordability across state lines, you’re not, you’re not afraid of competition I know you’re not, you would in fact invite it. I have friends in other states that say “you know I’d like to come to Nevada, but you have problems there in Nevada. And one of the problems is unfunded, well they are unfunded, but these mandates on insurance companies to provide coverage for things that people don’t even really need! And what we need to do is get rid of those mandates, let you provide a comprehensive coverage that takes care of what people need and allows them to buy them the things that they have to have, not things that are mandated by the government. A similar policy, as the things that people write for car insurance, and life insurance, you know you write something that fits the need of a person rather than fitting what the government has done for some politically correct special interest and that’s how we got those mandates.”

Can you say bullshit? What is comprehensive coverage if not mandating the insurance companies to provide a basic level of care? Why isn't she upset about having to buy auto insurance or fire insurance for her home? Maybe because they aren't underwriting her campaign?

Routine breast exams (never mind mammograms!). Colorectal exams. Prostate exams. Pap smears for early detection of ovarian and cervical cancer. Well-child visits. The "new" requirement that women be allowed 48-hours in hospital after a mastectomy rather than just 24 (used to be 1-week).

These are all medical services that we have come to associate with routine medical care. Care not just associated with the new health care reform, but care we receive if we are fortunate enough to have health insurance. Not every state has the same requirements, but most states have some minimal level of service that insurance companies are required to provide to its customers.

It makes sense, as if you catch cancer before it takes hold, you can stop it faster and easier (and supposedly cheaper) which should be as advantageous to the insurance companies as to the patient.

But no. Now we learn that these are not procedures and services contained in basic health care because they make sense, or because they are "basic." No. We receive these services because some special interest, somewhere, has paid the government to include that category in mandated insurance coverage. People like Sharon Angle love to talk in sound bytes like unfunded mandates and special interests, and sneer and use air quotes. Ever since John McCain went overboard with the use of air quotes during his debates with then Senator Obama, those on the right seem to believe that using them is an automatic dig at Democrats. And autism? Where is her buddy Palin on this one? After all, Palin's sister has a child with autism.Of course she'll speak out for children with disabilities and correct Angle. Right? Right? Right.

Angle (and now O'Donnell) take their cues from Palin and somehow believe that running for office (or a title, as Palin says - never far away from her beauty queen days) means proving the other person is unfit rather than trying to show how they would do better. When unable to prove anything negative about their opponent, they resort to personal smears (gay? gay? I never said he was gay. I would never say he was gay. who said he was gay? gay? not me) and lies (death panels anyone?) including misrepresenting legislation that their opponent is associated with. Journalists are little better as they say that their job is to present both sides, not to verify the truthfulness of what they report (Gregory). Statements by others they support that do not fit their worldview are ignored (remember the false concensus effect that I have discussed previously here and here) or re-written to say what they want it to say.

In the Pledge to America and the Republican rants against health care reform, in the conversations I have had or heard about the evils of socialized medicine, people against health care reform are against some generalized concept they have been taught to fear, but when asked item by item, point by point, one finds that they are actually in favor of the benefits to be gained by the new legislation. What is mind-boggling, is that you can ask many of these people if they are in favor of no pre-existing conditions conclusions, coverage for children until age 26, and some of the other individual features of health care reform, but tell them that they have just agreed to all of the component parts of the concept they are fighting against, they continue to say they are against it.

What is completely bizarre, is that Sharon Angle and Harry Reid are in a dead heat. Granted, Reid was way behind at one time, but once we started learning about what a whack job Sharon Angle really is, he started moving up in the polls - to dead even.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney Is At It Again, Playing With Quotes. UPDATED

2010-09-22T16:19:00.000-07:00

Here we go again. Our resident expert on all things national security, Liz Cheney, has weighed in (soon to be followed, I'm sure, by Palin, O'Donnell, et al), on President Obama's comments made during several meetings at the White House to discuss the operation of the war in Afghanistan as reported in Bob Woodward's latest book "Obama's Wars" which will be released on Monday. Writing in The Washington Post, Steve Luxenburg reviews the book, written he says, "... through detailed accounts of two dozen closed-door secret strategy sessions and nearly 40 private conversations between Obama and Cabinet officers, key aides and intelligence officials." Woodward writes, apparently from a "..meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review..."
At one of these meetings, the President is quoted as saying that:

"We can absorb a terrorist attack. We'll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger."

Liz responded immediately with the following: [emphasis added]

"Americans expect our President to do everything possible to defend the nation from attack. We expect him to use every tool at his disposal to find, defeat, capture and kill terrorists. We expect him to deter attacks by making clear to our adversaries that an attack on the United States will carry devastating consequences. Instead, President Obama is reported to have said, ‘We can absorb a terrorist attack.’ This comment suggests an alarming fatalism on the part of President Obama and his administration. Once again the President seems either unwilling or unable to do what it takes to keep this nation safe. The President owes the American people an explanation."

Several points here. First is context. Republicans love to take words out of context and tell us only part of the story. Certainly the President said that we can absorb a terrorist attack. He also went on to say that 1) we'll do everything to prevent it and 2) even after the biggest attack ever (9/11), we absorbed it and 3) we are stronger for it. Republicans like to campaign through fear and appealing to emotion. When we make decisions based on emotions - whether good or bad, they are usually not good ones.

I would also like to add that 9/11 happened because of the Bush/Cheney administration, we gave up the chance to capture Osama Bin Laden because Bush/Cheney diverted assets from Afghanistan to a totally unnecessary war in Iraq, and because of torture programs created by Liz's father, terrorist groups have their number one recruiting tool. Just saying.

I would think that patriotic Americans would be proud that although we do everything we can to avert another attack, should one happen, we are strong enough to absorb the damage and carry on without destroying ourselves as a nation.

What we have in Liz Cheney is a woman who wants to be a figurehead in the Republican Party, who wants to run for office, and who wants to appear on all the talks. What we actually have is someone who is last choice for the talks because she hasn't learned good manners yet (has anyone ever heard her let someone else complete a sentence? Didn't think so.) Women like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and now Christine O'Donnell are the darlings of the party so get all the current attention.

While Liz is misguided and misled by her father, she is not truly a crazy wing-nut in the mold of the teabags. Does this make her less dangerous? No. More. She has a following and is developing a voice. Eventually, the party will realize that who they call teabags are just the extremist fringe that has always been with them and will actually bring them down. When that happens, they'll need the Liz's - those Republican women who are extreme in their own right, but not able to cater to the whackos in the way that Palin and O'Donnell do.

What a piece of work. Once again I would just like to say, Liz, go home.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE: Great post at Truthdig on this topic. Ruth Marcus John Bolton's outrageous response to the President's comments:

"I think that may be the most outrageous thing that’s been reported about this book,” former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton told Fox News. “How can an American president say that as if he’s a detached observer and doesn’t care about Americans dying. I think people have been worried about his qualifications to be commander in chief for a long time, and that ought to prove it.”

And reported that Marc Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute said of the quote:

“...a shocking insight into Obama’s thinking when it comes to the terrorist threat” and “... stunningly complacent words from the man responsible for stopping such a terrorist attack. ... He is effectively saying: An attack is inevitable, we’ll do our best to prevent it, but if we get hit again—even on the scale of 9/11—it’s really no big deal.”

As noted by Marcus:

"If Obama is, as Thiessen asserts, “stunningly complacent” about the prospect of an attack, what does that make Dick Cheney, who said the question about another terrorist attack was “not a matter of if, but when”?"

"Or consider this “stunningly complacent” government official: “There will be another terrorist attack. We will not be able to stop it. It’s something we all live with.” That was FBI Director Robert Mueller—in 2002."

She then goes on to add:

"Woodward’s latest book, which details Obama’s desire to extricate American forces from Afghanistan as quickly as possible, may end up showing the president in an unflattering light—unflattering, at least, to those who believe that national security may require more time and resources than the president appears prepared to give."

A veritable tempest in a teapot indeed.

Bachmann's Ignorance is Showing, Again. Infantilism is a Paraphilia. If O'Donnell Supporters Are Just Like Her, They All Lie & Cheat?

2010-09-17T13:54:00.000-07:00

Below, are two videos and comments about two ignorant, and idiotic Republican women, Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell. The first, is of Bachmann speaking at the Values Voters Summit in which she once again displays her breathtaking ignorance. The second, is a clip from Anderson Cooper's CNN show where Christine O'Donnell is discussed. Less about ignorance, O'Donnell's behavior appears to be more about basic bad behavior - perhaps arising out of ignorance - most likely deliberate, especially after 5 years of senatorial campaigning when she should have learned the rules by now.

Included on the CNN clip, is a comment by a supporter of O'Donnell who says, "...she's just like me."

I have heard comments like this over and over again. Pundits and commentators, columnists and reporters have commented on why and how the likes of Sarah Palin and now Christine O'Donnell are able to garner so much support when they are demonstrably liars, ignorant, and not very Christian. The overwhelming answer is, that they resonate with their supporters as being "just like me."

My question then, is are right-wingers, teabags, and others proud to claim common cause with people who see the law as fungible? Who value people as much as they do the little puppy who has outgrown his cuteness (disposable)? When evidence is presented that those most damaged by the policies of the Republican Party are the blue-collar, middle-Americans, the high-school educated, family values voters, why do they refuse to listen? Why do they continue to see people making multi-millions of dollars as "one of them?"

I know the answers, but I wonder why our media refuses to ask those questions, discuss them on the Sunday talks, or remind these women that no, the 1st Amendment is not there to protect them from the media, but rather to protect the media from them and call them out on their refusal to participate in "the public's right to know."

"That kind of thinking to me, is infantilism."
--Michelle Bachmann

Michelle Bachmann is upset that President Obama has spoken about negative rights and the fact that we have them. Speaking at the Values Voters Summit, this particular rant includes her view that negative rights is analogous to infantilism, something she believes the President suffers from. ummm.

Okay. Putting on my counselors hat now. Infantilism is a mental health issue that falls within the paraphilias. So, what is a paraphilia you say? They are the group of mental health disorders that include sexual fantasies and behaviors that are atypical and extreme, and that cause distress or serious problems for the individual with the paraphilia. Because there are so many (some lists include over 400), the DSM-IV-TR provides diagnoses for 8 with very specific criteria, and of course, it's NOS (not otherwise specified) classification.

Paraphilias are a subject of much debate and controversy (homosexuality used to be classified as a paraphilia) and is now, within the professional community, considered to be sexual urges involving non-human objects (not designed for sexual gratification), children or other non-consenting persons, or involving pain and/or humiliation to ones self or others.

So, now that we have demonstrated Representative Bachmann's ignorance of yet another topic she has decided to weigh in on (what is it with these Republican women?), let's address the topic of negative and positive rights.

Negative rights are those that are granted without specific action being needed on the part of anyone (i.e., government in this case). For example, freedom of speech, the right to privacy, civil rights, etc. These are rights that are granted to us by right of citizenship and no action is necessary for us to receive them, only if for some reason, they are taken away.

Positive rights are those that require specific action on the part of someone else. For example, police protection, education, the national defense, and such things as free counsel, social security, and medicare which our society has determined are rights granted to its citizens. That is, things that are given to us, action has to be taken for us to receive them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Continuing with today's theme of idiotic Republican women, Christine O'Donnell is now being investigated for campaign violations arising out of the senatorial campaign prior to this current one. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed a complaint which has evidently had enough validity to result in a formal FEC investigation. This video speaks for itself in itemizing the problems in her campaign practices.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Help Get the Dream Act Passed

2010-09-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

Please help support the Dream Act and go here for a list of Senators who need some prodding to do the right thing and how to contact them as well as a sample script.

For those who don't know what this act is all about, it offers students an opportunity to achieve citizenship by serving in the military. As posted on the website Dream Act Info:

"The purpose of the Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors Act, also called the DREAM Act, is to help those individuals who meet certain requirements, have an opportunity to enlist in the military or go to college and have a path to citizenship which they otherwise would not have without this legislation. Supporters of the DREAM Act believe it is vital not only to the people who would benefit from it, but also the United States as a whole. It would give an opportunity to undocumented immigrant students who have been living in the U.S. since they were young, a chance to contribute back to the country that has given so much to them and a chance to utilize their hard earned education and talents."

Foreign nationals already serve in our military. This bill gives them recognition that we value their service and will reward their sacrifice - something this country has not done well for those already citizens, much less anyone else.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Billo Needs Educating on Definition of Racism

2010-09-10T14:25:00.000-07:00

Good article today at Crooks and Liars regarding racism - what it is and what it isn't. As a sociologist, it's a subject I have studied in depth and watched in the media with great frustration. My favorite quote from this post is Hilary Shelton of the NAACP responding to Bill O'Reilly's attempt at a gotcha. O'Reilly had said, referring to Reverend Wright in a discussion of racism, claiming:

"...that Wright was a racist -- based on his belief that the federal government had created the HIV virus as a way to harm black men. This, BillO claimed, was "hate speech."

Shelton then responded by saying:

"Bill, I think you should look up the definition of the word "racist." It might help you understand what is racism and what is not."

As pointed out in the article, the conservative perspective of racism is that it is "the outright hatred of people of other races" which allows them to attack any and all for whatever they choose to see as "racist" behavior.

What happens, is that a member of a marginalized group such as women, persons of color, immigrants, the elderly, the poor, and others with limited voice in our society, are accused of racism or "reverse" racism when they attempt to stand up for themselves.

From a sociological perspective, racism is institutional and is not based on a particular situation or individual (although it can be demonstrated by such), but is a belief that the inherent characteristics that place an individual within their group make them less than the dominant culture. These characteristics are features that are inherent, or present from birth and something that cannot be changed. Poverty is probably the only characteristic that can be altered, but the fact of it cannot. An individual may move out of poverty, but their membership in that group at some point in their life - usually childhood - is a fact and the need to overcome the lack of social capital has had a profound effect on his or her life.

For others, color and gender, sexual orientation, and country of origin are inherent. In the dominant culture, hundreds of years of white, male supremacy cannot be overcome by a few years of legislated equality no matter how much we would like it so. It is a fact as well, that in many countries of color that the "advanced" countries of the world and their colonialism of the third world has spread this attitude of white paternalism to the point that even in those countries, skin color is a significant factor in an individuals' success in life.

A close friend several years ago shared her experience growing up in rural Mexico and how those with lighter skin fared compared to those with darker skin - a conversation later confirmed by those from other countries. Just spend a little time watching Univision or another Spanish language station - most of the news anchors or TV stars have blond hair and light skin.

While today it is those from the Middle East who are feared and hated, and those from Mexico who are attacked for the illegality of their presence here, earlier in the 20th century it was those from southern Europe who were considered "less than" and restricted in their access to this country. Prior to that, it was the Irish and the Germans, and not so many years ago that a Presidential candidate was attacked for his Catholicism.

There is always a group that is feared and hated and considered to be the interloper here. We bring them in for our own needs, then blame them for all our own ills when they decide to stay. We brought the Chinese to build the railroads, the Mexicans to work the fields, and somehow thought that "Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free..." only applied to white, northern Europeans and then wanted to send them home when we were done with them.

Now, we use Iraqi and Afghani citizens to help our troops as translators, guides, and service workers. We know that just being seen talking to Americans by the wrong person can label them collaborators and put their lives and those of their families at risk to the point that the American government has instituted a plan to allow Iraqi and Afghan civilians who have aided our troops to relocate to the U.S. We bring them here (in numbers far fewer than we should, by the way) as thanks for risking their lives on our behalf, and deny them safety and the right to practice their religion not because of who they are, but what they are.

"O'Reilly, it seems, wants to define racism as "inflammatory remarks based on cockamamie conspiracy theories." Another example of the right-wing extremists creating their own reality to sell to the ignorant.

That, is racism.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin's Backhanded Facebook Post to Pastor Jones. Stand Down but Not Really.

2010-09-09T15:45:00.000-07:00

This image doesn't have much to do with the topic, but I couldn't resist.

Image: Chris Tilling

Much as I hate to give this woman this much attention, I find it increasingly necessary to respond to her actions. Regardless of the headline of the day and what it may or may not have to do with her, Sarah Palin has to weigh in with her wealth of experience and wisdom. For once, I appreciate her suggesting that the Florida church halt their proposed burning of the Quran on 9/11, but much as I appreciate it, I find her rationale offensive and don't believe that she really means it. She refused to comment until she saw other Republicans suggest Pastor Jones cancel his plans, then decided to go all elder stateswoman. Pure political posturing. Her lack of understanding of the Middle East, its history, our history relative to it, and even our own Constitutional process is mind-boggling. If she had made her comment and left it at that, we would all be better off, but no, she has to keep talking and add fuel to the fire.

What Sarah and many others on the right do not understand, is that many (most?) in the Middle East do not understand American style democracy and freedom of speech. Most do not have a high level of education and what they do have, is received via clerics and weighted heavily towards a religious point of view (another point in favor of separation of church and state). This being the case, many in the Middle East do not understand that because of our freedom of speech, we are allowed to do all kinds of things that are offensive such as burn flags and burn books. Our leaders do not get to do anything about it. Unfortunately, the Arab world in large part believes that President Obama could do something about this proposed book burning if he wanted to and the fact that he does not means that he does not want to. The fact that they find the burning of the Quran - even the discussion of such - extremely offensive and, they believe, tacitly endorsed by the President, does more to undo the work of our forces than anything else that has happened in the entire duration of the war.

Now that combat operations in Iraq are over, the remaining troops are there to help support the government of Iraq and win the hearts and minds of the people. We are in Afghanistan to do the same. Somehow, Osama bin Laden, the true responsible party for 9/11, is rarely talked about.

Have we all forgotten that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslim? We love them while they are in their own country and are willing to spend billions of dollars and the lives of our young men and women protecting them, but unwilling to allow them to worship should they move to this one? I would bet that neither Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or any of the others claiming that Islam is a religion of hate have actually read the Quran (and I wonder if they have actually read the Bible - the Bible itself is hard, they've probably depended on all the devotionals and readings provided by their pastors and churches to tell them what it says - it's the only explanation I can think of to explain the hatred coming out of a religion that says to love thy neighbor as thyself).

You'll note if you read any of the comments made by Palin's followers that they are as ignorant of Christianity as they are of Islam. They all speak with such authority of the Muslim religion not understanding that it is called Islam, and claim to speak for God (did you know so many people knew his thoughts?) yet spew speech that is so filled with hate and vitriol that I feel slimy after reading it. Definitely makes me ashamed to admit to being a Christian, although I doubt I would pass any of their "tests" since I haven't seen the inside of a church in too many years to count.

This latest Facebook post put up on behalf of Sarah Palin is excellent as an example of her inability to comprehend her own ignorance. Typical of her speech patterns, each sentence and paragraph negates the one before and demonstrates an inability to practice simple proof-reading or basic essay-writing skills. As I used to teach my students, writing a paper or an essay begins very simply; you say what you're going to say, say it, then say what you said. Within that frame, you then construct your argument, making sure that everything links to what went before and is summarized at the end. If not, take it out. Loaded speech and emotional terms distract from the message and tell the reader that you probably don't have evidence to support your argument if you have to depend on fallacies to make your point. Back to Sarah's Facebook "Updated" Facebook post asking Pastor Jones to stand down posted today which I refuse to link to. Go find it yourself if you want, I've copied the text below. I've bolded my response:

Update:Book burning is bad. But the Muslim cleric who is running for parliament in Afghanistan is calling for the murder of American children in response to scorched Korans, which is worse. Where is the media's focus?

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation – much like building a mosque at Ground Zero. [False equivalency. One has nothing to do with the other except for the fact that those wanting to build a community center 4-blocks from Ground Zero are Muslim and the Quran is their holy book. I have not heard them call for the deaths of anyone, children or otherwise.]

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. [Pot, kettle?] Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Again, the foundations of our country are very specifically not Christian, in fact, the founders were not Christians and discussed that fact and decided and debated and put in the part about separation of church and state on purpose - look up the definition of deism. There is a strong thread of Christianity throughout American history pre- and post-revolution, but it is because of the religions forced on many of the colonists and the demands made by colonial leaders that their be a state religion that the writers of the Constition decided on such a strong separation between church and state - go read your history]

[freedom and equality? I was raised a Christian and have to tell you, there is no gender equality in early Christianity, and mercy? Not until the New Testament and still, look at Revelations...]

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. [So why do you do it?] In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?

[Do you know what the Gold Rule actually is? Why would you say that's what the mosque debate is about? Let's see, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Ummm. Let them build their community center so that if I purchase abandoned property 4-blocks away I can build mine without people like you interfering in my business for cheap political gain?]

- Sarah Palin

[And the first comments at the time that I was at her page]

Nancy Harp: "Yeah... we just tolerate, right? Use gloves to touch their precious book that tells them to kill, kill; kill ... all that are not Muslim!! [sic]

Ila Waldstein: I like Sharon Tucker's idea..let all send parts or something made of pig's..they will go away then...can we get this thing going ?" [sic] [actually, this is sick]

Tim D. Rabara: "how can it get any worse than 9 11. these animals are trying to kill us everyday! It's okay for them to burn our flag and our bible in their own country but we can't do that here after what they've done to us and are still trying to do it e every day.they'll get over it.they're going to continue doing it no matter what we do.bin laden gets all his dummies to die for his cause and what's he doing? Running and hiding like the little coward that he is. he can't run forever.the muslim cleric needs to be locked up for life .shot by american firing squad would be nice! people or person need to remember where they're at and where they come from, America not afghanistan. thank you . i'm done for now." [sic]

Pamelia Doss: "it will do absolutely no good to be afraid of the muslems. the koran teaches them to wipe out the little satan which is Isreal and the big satan which is America. This is there plan and it does not matter what 1 person in America does. I am indeed a Christian. I have Moslem friends. They burn our flag and it is ok. Our Moslem president will never stand up for America. one time I read a book and in the last chapter it said 'IF they could get a moslem in the white house, America would fall from within'. I NEVER FORGOT THOSE WORDS! Wake up America, look for a crises to happen before the Nov elections. Stop, Look, and Listen. Pray and turn back to God" [sic]

Jan ODell: Good article. I hope the Pastor listens and hears. Praying for a nice rain storm from 7pm-9pm Sept 11 in Gainesville, FL would be a good start. Let God rain the book burning out." [sic]

Michelle Mcdonald: "Musslim Religion Koran/Qoran teaches kill all unbelievers of Islamic Alah. Murder is still illegal. This religion should not have a right to be worshipped ? Freedom of Religion or Freedom to MURDER ???
Opposite/AntiChrist of... Jesus harmed no one. He made himself the sacrifice for our sin and now seated at... the right hand of God in glory." [sic]

The above posts are indicative of the over 2,000 that were received for this post alone. There were a few that disagreed, but the disagreement was mild - the posters having obviously learned how not to be immediately deleted - and slammed by others such as those above. They say that all Muslims want to do is "kill, kill, kill," yet all they can say about them is to "kill, kill, kill." How Christian of them.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Palin Manipulates Self-Esteem of Audience Per Vanity Fair Article

2010-09-01T17:45:00.000-07:00

A lot has been written about the new Vanity Fair piece up about Sarah Palin, so I won't go into it in depth, but one point was made towards the end of the article that I think was overlooked in much of the analysis that I have seen.

Much of the criticism has focused on the reporting of Palin's behavior and treatment towards others, particularly her family. I believe it comes as no surprise to those of us on the blogs who follow her that her children are (to her), little more than props, and everyone else is simply a tool. Tools are to be used as needed and discarded when their usefulness ends.

Palin supporters responded to the piece with anger, claiming that it was just more of the same, however, the additional information about her demands for more clothing ($3,000 worth of underwear paid for by the RNC? really?) and her treatment of service workers is so in line with everything else we have learned, that it is easy to believe and just adds to the base of information we have about her without doing anything to change opinion, pro or con. It is just confirmation of an existing belief that either 1) the left is out to get her, or 2) she is an evil, corrupt woman (my personal favorite).

But, what struck me, was this: [emphasis added]

"...she is also planting the idea with audiences that they might not be good enough, by telling them she thinks they’re plenty good, no matter what anybody else may say. (“They talk down to us… They think that if we were just smart enough … ”) To some, the message sounds like an affirmation. But is it really? Or does it seed self-doubt and rancor among her partisans, and encourage them to see everyone else as malign?

Absolutely correct. Reverse psychology at its most basic and so unexpected in this setting that no one would believe its use. Palin may be lacking in intelligence, but she is canny and manipulative, and has a highly developed ability to give people what they want - a characteristic of certain personality disorders. By injecting negativity into the conversation, she ensures that she adjusts the perspective of her followers so that they see themselves and others in that negative light and have to work to see anything in a positive light.

Palin has reportedly quite an anger management problem, with this author saying that she frequently throws things and can go off on others with minimal provocation. This behavior, coupled with her pathological lies, raises a lot of red flags. The ability to chip away at the self-esteem of her audience without their awareness is particularly troubling and I am pleased to see at least one member of the major media able to recognize her actions as such and to educate his readers.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tasers, 'Roid Rage and Our Culture of Violence

2010-08-08T13:40:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: zaiusnation

Sorry I haven't posted for awhile. Summer and the job search and moving have taken up too much time. I am also traveling so posts will continue to be infrequent for another couple of weeks. Thanks for your patience.

Here is a great post by Steven D on Daily Kos (h/t digby) about tasers, a subject I have written about here, here, here, and here. Because my writing focuses on the intersection of social issues and politics, the earlier posts I have linked to discuss the influence of the hard right (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et al) on the violence in our society, which permits us to (continue to?) believe that persons in authority, particularly those in uniform, can do no wrong.

As quoted by Steven D from the Aug. 5, 2010 Chicago Sun-Times,

"Chicago Police officers have nearly quadrupled their use of Tasers since the department equipped every beat car with the electric-shock weapons earlier this year, according to new figures released by the Independent Police Review Authority."

"The agency, which reviews complaints of police misconduct, tracks every use of a Taser. In the second quarter of 2010, the devices were discharged 285 times by Chicago cops -- up from 74 in the first quarter of 2010 and 39 in the fourth quarter of 2009. Only a few of those Taser discharges resulted in an allegation of police misconduct, the police oversight agency noted."

The article also notes that Chicago Alderman Anthony Beale justifies the increased use of tasers because more offenders are using drugs. As Steven D notes, hello? He then goes on to discuss the increasing use of steroids by police officers and the relationship to increased use of tasers.

Having once worked in a sports facility and experienced at first-hand what happens when a very large man has an episode of 'roid rage, and also worked with addicts and am familiar with the difficulty of the police in subduing persons under the influence of, for example, PCP, I can understand the fear experienced by the police when faced with some offenders. When faced with the need to be as strong and as fit as possible, using steroids to level the playing field is a misguided, but logical, conclusion. Access to additional tools such as tasers is of course, even better. Not.

I studied criminology, and took a course in criminal psych, but don't remember many offerings in anger management or conflict resolution. Police officers are trained in basic psychology and diffusing difficult situations, but they are also, due to budget cuts, often riding alone and faced with limited training in the finer points of anger management and, believe it or not, the law. Attitude? Tase. Getting cussed out? Tase. Pissed off because the perp fought back (even though he is now on the ground and in restraints)? Tase. High school student in the hall without a pass? Tase. Grandma upset about getting a ticket? Tase. On the shoulder in your vehicle going into insulin shock? Tase. Drunk and passing out? Tase.

Somehow, it has become okay to use force as long as it is not deadly. Tasers? Just a little shock (unless, of course, you have a heart condition which of course the user of the taser can tell by looking at you).

In our law and order society, egged on by the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, we have developed an "us or them" mentality which makes it okay to mistreat anyone fitting into the "them" category. Somehow, police are applauded for using their tasers because they didn't use their guns, rather than being censured for using their tasers instead of their brain.

In this age of camera phones, we now know of the abuse of tasers by the police. Their response? It's now illegal to videotape the police. Clearly a subject that needs additional research and discussion, but one that ties directly to the overarching trend in our culture towards a more violent, less cohesive society.

This is one point of view. Here's another from the police perspective as an officer writes about the growing controversy in Taser Today.

Thoughts? Comments?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Malkin's Faux Outrage - Palin's Demand for "Refudiation"

2010-07-15T13:31:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin has been all over President Obama for his racism as she demanded that he "refudiate" his remarks made regarding the NAACP's decision to condemn the Teaparty movement for their racism. Refudiate? I've heard of conflating issues, but words? Now Michelle Malkin and others at Faux are on board as well.

President Obama's words that were particularly offensive to Malkin et al., included;

"Radical Islamists in Africa, believe any efforts to modernize, any efforts to provide basic human rights, any efforts to democratize are somehow anti-Islam."
"And what you've seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself," Mr. Obama added. "They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains."

As commenter tbone at Media Matters said in response to this exchange,

"African audience - "African" adjective. If this has occurred in Norway, he could have said "Norwegian". When we speak of 9/11, the phrase "American lives" or "they want to kill Americans" is and has been used repetitively notwithstanding that they do want to kill the infidels.

Only in the Faux-Bot mind does an adjective for nationality immediately become one for ethnicity. "

The Republicans can't get any traction from the economy or healthcare reform, their apologies to BP and support of the oil companies are drawing the wrong kind of attention, and according to a poll commissioned by the National Employment Law Project, 74% of Americans would prefer that Congress extend unemployment benefits and payments for health insurance subsidies than worry about the deficit.

Immigration reform may play well on the news, but the more experienced Republicans know that, especially in the border states, alienating the Hispanic voters is a good way to lose elections. It may be politic to jump on the teabag bandwagon and behave as if Rush Limbaugh were their BFF, but in their heart of hearts, most Republicans who have been around for any period of time know that true party purity and adherence to the teabag values would be disastrous to the country and to their party.

So, what do they do? Racism is no longer taboo, it's out of the closet since President Obama's speech during the campaign. Too many people don't understand that racism is insidious and just as sexism is more than overt harassment, racism is more than using the "n" word. An organization can claim to be without racism, to welcome all comers, to be diverse, but the proof is in the actual makeup and actions of the organization itself. Thus, completely missing the point, the Republicans have chosen racism as their cause celebre. Unfortunately, they seem not to understand that racism towards Hispanics is still racism.

During the time of Affirmative Action, many believed that it was about quotas and that it was totally unfair to whites - a kind of reverse racism if you will. To this day, many do not understand that opening the doors of opportunity does not reverse hundreds of years of institutional thinking. Social capital (that intangible something necessary to overcome institutional racism) is built out of many things, including a family's position in society, the educational achievements of the parents, and something as simple as whether or not the parents value reading. Because there is so much ignorance over what exactly racism is, and isn't, people are afraid to discuss it and are terrified that by doing so, they may open themselves to accusations of racism.

Racism is when Sarah Palin refers to our president as "half-white" and sees nothing wrong with that comment. Racism is when, because we have an African-American president, that everything is viewed through a racial lens. Racism is when it is still okay for our politicians to say that the "papers please" law in Arizona is okay and that it is not racial profiling and that even if it is, so what. Racism is when members of Congress are spat upon as they walk into the Senate and members of the media say, "there's no video, so it didn't happen," rather than taking the word of the members who were there and saw it happen. Racism is distributing photos of the President wearing African tribal garb or in white-face and thinking that it is okay.

PHOTO: Zina Saunders

A national journalist shows a photo of Sarah Palin that was photo-shopped and goes on air to apologize. President Obama is vilified daily and photos of him as Hitler or in other demeaning ways are shown on national networks and it's business as usual. That is racism. Not only are many of the Republicans racist, they're dinosaurs. They want to return to attitudes and policies of the past that enriched their bank accounts but contributed to the mess this country is in. Half-governor Palin inserts herself into every conversation of the day, has advise for the president at every turn, and now has the gall to tell him that he is a racist because Faux News and Michelle Malkin say so. As commenter tbone said above, were he in America, President Obama would have referred to Americans, if in Norway, Norwegians. How many times does Sarah Palin refer to Alaskans as if they were God's chosen people (no wait, that's Israel)?

Just as with the healthcare reform debates, conversation normally helps more than it hurts. The fear and anger that was generated by the misinformation disseminated by the insurance industries and their lackeys played to people's emotions and when emotion is involved, decisions are based not on logic, but on fear. When every decision the President makes or comment that is heard is viewed through the lens of racism, people respond emotionally.

Decisions made (and votes cast) based on emotion are rarely the right ones. Even votes cast for hope leave us open to turning on (in this case President Obama) him when he inevitably disappoints us when he makes decisions we don't like. We can't ignore our emotions, but we can recognize when our leaders and our media are manipulating us (or trying to) in order to use our emotions to generate anger and fear so that we act in the ways that they choose for us to act.

What do you think? Is it okay for the President to call out others for their racism? What about Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin? Do they even understand what racism is? Do they care or are they just trying to get attention?

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Lara Logan Calls Reporter a Liar for Committing Journalism

2010-06-30T12:23:00.000-07:00

I've always liked Lara Logan. I always liked Christiane Amanpour and other women strong enough and brave enough to report from war zones and do, what I believed, real journalism.

For years, women on the news side of television were little more than talking heads, hired for their appearance and instructed on how to wear their hair, how to accessorize, and what to wear. Not real journalists, they read what they were given to read and if seen at an actual news event, it was usually as a celebrity presence, not as a reporter.

I have enjoyed watching women on television news age; their jaws becoming slightly less firm as did mine, their waistlines a little thicker, and their smile lines staying in place when they stopped smiling. A few years ago, women were fired when they were no longer Miss America beautiful; now they are allowed to be human, mostly.

When Michael Hastings wrote his article about General Stanley McChrystal in Rolling Stone that led to the General's firing and eventual retirement from the military altogether--reported yesterday--the backlash was not against McChrystal and his reported disrespect to his Commander in Chief. The backlash was not toward his staff and the frat boy atmosphere that encouraged such a wealth of material for Hastings to choose from. No. The backlash was against Hastings for having the temerity to write such an article. And the backlash was from the mainstream media who were universally appalled that a "reporter" would so abuse the honored privilege he had been given by writing so negatively about General McChrystal. The consensus was, "Rolling Stone? Who cares what they say. They're not 'real' journalists anyway." Fortunately (unfortunately?) the readers of Rolling Stone (including evidently the President), do care.

The most egregious example, to me, was an interview given by Lara Logan on CNN. The rising star of the Afghan war with her glowing reports conducted while embedded with the troops, Ms. Logan has, apparently, the gravitas to give the final word on the actions of Mr. Hastings. Not.
WATCH:

Watch Hastings appear on the program earlier:

Talking to the oh so neutral Howie Kurtz on "Reliable Sources," Logan claims that:

"Michael Hastings, if you believe him, says that there were no ground rules laid out. And, I mean, that just doesn't really make a lot of sense to me ... I mean, I know these people. They never let their guard down like that. To me, something doesn't add up here. I just -- I don't believe it. "

Using loaded language, she referred to Hastings' "game" when describing his earlier comments about his methods to build trust between himself and the subjects of his report. She denied that reporters write only positive articles to ensure continued access to their assigned "beats" saying,

"What I find is the most telling thing about what Michael Hastings said in your interview is that he talked about his manner as pretending to build an illusion of trust and, you know, he's laid out there what his game is. That is exactly the kind of damaging type of attitude that makes it difficult for reporters who are genuine about what they do, who don't -- I don't go around in my personal life pretending to be one thing and then being something else. I mean, I find it egregious that anyone would do that in their professional life."

What, the military didn't know Hastings was a reporter? Or are they so used to "reporters" who buy access by saying only nice, sanitized things about the conduct of the military?

Angered at Hastings' suggestion that reporters edit themselves in order to maintain access, Logan said: [emphasis added]

"I think that's insulting and arrogant, myself. I really do," Logan said, "because there are very good beat reporters who have been covering these wars for years, year after year. Michael Hastings appeared in Baghdad fairly late on the scene, and he was there for a significant period of time. He has his credentials, but he's not the only one. There are a lot of very good reporters out there. And to be fair to the military, if they believe that a piece is balanced, they will let you back. Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has."

Can she not see that she just contradicted herself? "...if they [the military] believe a piece is balanced, they will let you back." By whose standards? The military? What is balance? Is this the same military that embeds journalists to make sure that they see what they want them to see and report what they want them to report? I remember watching images of Vietnam over the dinner table and know that it was those images that had a lot to do with the national mood that ultimately led to our leaving. Journalists in Vietnam were not "embedded" nor were they limited on what they could see, do, or say. As a result, we have a vivid, albeit ugly, history of our time in that country. And, we now have a generation of American's who have a real understanding--without having been there--of the real meaning of war, not the pretty, Disney version the Pentagon would have us see.

By the way. What branch of the military was Logan in? And this has to do with what, how?

Discussing the issue of "on-the-record" vs. "off-the-record," Taibi notes that although he works for Rolling Stone, he does not know Michael Hastings, but can sympathize for him after listening to Logan's interview because;

"...when some would-be "reputable" journalist who's just been severely ass-whipped by a relative no-name freelancer on an enormous story fights back by going on television and, without any evidence at all, accusing the guy who beat him of cheating. That's happened to me so often, I've come to expect it. If there's a lower form of life on the planet earth than a "reputable" journalist protecting his territory, I haven't seen it."

Commenting on Logan's remarks about the "understanding" between reporter and subject and trust that is built up so that--in this case--McChrystal knows he can talk freely knowing that anything negative will not be reported, a trust that she says Hastings broke, Taibi says:

"...the reason Lara Logan thinks this is because she's like pretty much every other "reputable" journalist in this country, in that she suffers from a profound confusion about who she's supposed to be working for. I know this from my years covering presidential campaigns, where the same dynamic applies. Hey, assholes: you do not work for the people you're covering!"

Somehow in this country, we have come to the conclusion that if we speak out against the war, we are against the troops. That if we show the horrors of war, we are anti-war. Clearly Lara Logan has become enamored of the military. Who wouldn't? Her rise to fame (and I'm sure, fortune) is directly tied to American's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What is sad is that true support of the troops would be to bring them home, to fight the war they signed up for and then bring them home. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We "won" Afghanistan in 2002. There are (according to the military) less than 50 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan at this time. Even McChrystal does not believe in his much touted anti-insurgency policy and President Obama is fighting a sinking approval rating and believes somehow that a withdrawal from Afghanistan will make him appear weak. It is the Lara Logan's in the mainstream media who are responsible for our going to war, our continued presence there, and the nation's ignorance of the true agenda of the Republican Party.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Dear Sarah Palin

2010-06-20T14:59:00.000-07:00

Sarah, President Obama is Not a CEO (& You Weren't Either)

2010-06-16T15:19:00.000-07:00

As appropriate, today President Obama met with the Chairman of BP, as well as CEO Hayward and other officials. Yesterday, half-term quitter, I mean, ex-governor Palin said on the O'Reilly show that President Obama should meet, CEO to CEO with Hayward to resolve the Gulf oil disaster. Watching her body language and interaction with Bill O was quite amusing as she did not receive the beauty queen treatment she normally expects on Fox News shows. The grim expression and shrill voice said more than her words as she demanded actions already taken (how many foreign flagged vessels are already working in the gulf?) and claimed, again, her lengthy experience working with the oil companies. Did anyone else catch her on the one hand claiming that the oil companies lie, while at the end demanding that we not demonize them so they don't fail. She also demanded throughout that the fault was the lack of regulation and oversight by the Obama Administration (in office for a whole 16-months by now) and this by someone claiming membership in a party and sub-party pleading for enough government to fit in a bathtub. Sigh.

Not only can Sarah Palin not stay on script, she cannot remember what she said three sentences ago in order not to negate herself. Much as I hate to say it, Bill O pushed her just enough that any half-thinking person (although not sure there are any watching Fox) would catch the inconsistencies. He certainly did.

Let me try to explain. Sarah. President Obama is not a CEO. The United States is not a corporation. I am not a shareholder. Congress is not his Board of Directors. They do not have the authority to fire him as they did not hire him (the duty of a Board). Although he proposes budgets and oversees departments in a very broad sense, his bottom line is not profit. A CEO's reason for being is profit. The purpose of government is to spend money on its citizens, not to create profit for its own sake. The purpose of a corporation is to create profit for its shareholders. Period. A CEO that does not produce profit is fired. A CEO that does not focus on the bottom line and does not put his or her shareholders first before all other factors, is behaving in an unethical and possibly illegal manner.

Much as we would like BP to be warm and fuzzy and care about the animals and the people of the Gulf, it's not their job. Their job is to make lots of money. It is the job of government to make sure that the people of the Gulf are taken care of and that the animals and the environment are taken into account. That's why we have such things as the Clean Water Act, the EPA, and the MMS. Regulations were put into place because corporations are there to create profit and governments are there to protect its citizens from the corporation. Anyone who questions this should locate a copy of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and then go buy a hotdog. Or any kind of processed meat. Go on. I'll wait.

So, what is a CEO? Why do you and others who continue to call the President (and themselves when Governor) a CEO look foolish when you do so? It's because you ignore the complexity of government and the corporate world. You not only talk only in buzz words and catch phrases, but evidently, you can only think in them as well.

***************************************************

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) -- per Investopedia

"The highest ranking executive in a company whose main responsibilities include developing and implementing high-level strategies, making major corporate decisions, managing the overall operations and resources of a company, and acting as the main point of communication between the board of directors and the corporate operations. The CEO will often have a position on the board, and in some cases is even the chair."

"There are various other titles for the position of CEO including president and executive or managing director. The role of the CEO will vary from one company to another depending on its size and organization. In smaller companies, the CEO will often have a much more hands-on role in the company, making a lot of the business decisions, even lower-level ones such as the hiring of staff. However, in larger companies, the CEO will often deal with only the higher-level strategy of the company and directing its overall growth, with most other tasks deligated to managers and departments."

An article in Business Week in April of 2009 discussed the need to redefine the role of the CEO in light of the financial meltdown of Wall Street and the need to avert government interference in the operation of corporations. The discussion said, among other things that,

"Appropriate management of financial risk involves elevating the function so that it reports at the top of the company to the CEO and board and is treated as an equal in status (if not precisely in pay) to business generators. It then entails evaluating both business processes and real results in the core tasks of assessing, spreading and controlling risk. It should focus on fundamental issues of capital adequacy, leverage, and liquidity—integrating off-balance sheet activities into assessments of these risk issues and using early warning systems to spot unforeseen risks." [emphasis added]

***************************************************

I'm disappointed in President Obama's apparent lack of understanding of the seriousness of the mess we are in, but I understand that 1) BP and the other oil companies are the only ones who have the knowledge to clean this up, and 2) it is the policies and de-regulation of the previous administration that created the environment that led to this disaster.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Join the FB Group "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill With SP"

2010-06-15T15:29:00.000-07:00

Got a Facebook page? Join the group, "1,000,000 People Who Want to Plug the BP Oil Spill With Sarah Palin" by going here

Sarah Palin's "Tells" Tell Us When She Lies

2010-06-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

I try to avoid watching Sarah Palin anymore, although I have written in the past about how she presents and what I observe. During the 2008 campaign, my main concern was for the children as they were paraded before the media while at the same time, the Palin's demanded that the children be left out of political discussion. Watching the dynamics of the Palin family while on-stage, while waiting to go on-stage, during video clips of the campaign plane and the various interactions available to us via hours of video and still photographs was an education in family dysfunction.

I am gratified that we see very little of Trig or Piper - perhaps she is now attending school and he is receiving the intensive one-on-one attention necessary for an infant with Down Syndrome? The parading of Bristol and now Willow in inappropriate venues in inappropriate clothing is a disappointment, but it is clear that the Palin family business is business, and that the commodity that they have to sell is themselves. As Sarah ages and her lack of substance becomes more apparent, perhaps she is counting on her daughters to step in and fill the family coffers. Who knows. Hopefully the day will come when we can cease caring - the day when if the Palins have not left politics, that at least politics will at least have left them.

Sarah's most recent video appearance was with Greta Van Susteran as she addressed the buzz that is all over the internets about the possibility of breast implants. She seems somehow surprised that feminists have not joined in supporting her as her attempts - she says - to wear layers to avert attention away from her breasts (what was that very thin t-shirt at Belmont?) has failed and she is being objectified (my word, not sure she knows that one).

When I watch someone speak or appear in an interview, just as in a counseling session, I pay more attention to how they say what they are saying then to the actual words said. Obvious "tells" alert me to moments when the words probably mean more, but overall, it is how someone says something and the meaning behind the words that mean the most. In counseling, of course, the purpose and goal is quite different than in "real" life where - especially in politics - words do matter. However, Sarah has some really interesting tells that I am surprised that at this point in her public life, remain. With all the 'gates and media attention one would think that she would have received better advice (as well as voice coaching), but she apparently knows it all already and is unable and/or unwilling to acknowledge any faults, the first step necessary to self-improvement.

As I watched this video, 2 things struck me. I re-watched it several times to ensure that I had seen what I thought I had seen, and believe me, it was like nails on a blackboard. But even though she was prepared for the questions about breast implants, Sarah was very angry that she had to address the issue, and despite her statement to Greta that she had great respect and love for her, it was one of her bigger lies of the interview. The other? Claiming that she did not want to be judged on appearance. Lie. The tells were huge for anyone who knows what to look for.

During the entire interview, Sarah's behavior was incongruent with what she said. Watch her eyes, her neck, and her mouth. Stress is apparent as her neck cords, as she swallows, and in the tightness of her mouth. I think she wears glasses believing they hide (filter) her eyes - they do not. (BTW - anyone notice that she did not refer to the mainstream media as lamestream media? she actually said mainstream this time - significant stress signal when that is one of her favorite slurs).

Throughout the interview, she either nodded (very infrequently) or shook her head. Most of the time when she was speaking, she was also shaking her head, which tells me that she does not agree with what she is saying. There is shaking your head to suggest dismay at something or someone (i.e., "oh, those poor...), but behavior incongruent to what one is saying that is excessive and continuous is problematic. For her. For us? I'm glad she continues to get such poor advice, especially with the mid-terms coming up.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

President Bush - Ongoing Serial Stupidity & Willful Ignorance (Or Is He Just Evil?)

2010-06-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: mindfully.org

I've written 15 posts about torture and although I am deeply disappointed at the Obama Administration's decision to let Bush and Cheney get away with their actions leading up to and during the Iraq war, I had thought that the discussion had subsided into a low murmur.

Unable to keep his mouth shut, President Bush made a cavalier comment while speaking in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday, saying that he did indeed have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded, and would do so again if it would save lives. Never mind that there is significant evidence, as discusssed by Matthew Alexander here, that details how waterboarding detainees made us less safe.

Extensive research, readily available to the President and much of it conducted by the FBI - experts at interrogation - and the Department of Defense, has been conducted on how to elicit useful information from people. As a counselor, it is my job to be able to get people to open up as I have discussed here that I have related to SERE training and torture.

Today, Dan Froomkin reports on the response of top military leaders to Bush's comments. Anger appears to be the universal response. They are appalled that Bush, still, has no conception of the illegality of his actions nor does he appear to care (although, why should he? apparently ex-Presidents are above the law).

"George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting."

There is no question that waterboarding is torture regardless of what has been discussed in the media in the past year or two. This country has imprisoned people and even executed people for waterboarding, and as recently as a few years ago, a sheriff's deputy in Texas was jailed for using waterboarding as an interrogation technique. More discussion here.

The article goes on to quote military leaders:

"Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years."

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."
But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

The article continues by quoting other military leaders:

"James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush's remarks--and former Vice President Cheney's before him--is 'to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars."

"Cheney famously once agreed with an interviewer that a 'dunk in the water' was a 'no-brainer' if it saves lives."

What is it with these men? Don't confuse me with the facts? As I wrote about yesterday, this is willful ignorance in the extreme, and the serial stupidity of the Republican Party to the nth degree.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

SUN: 7:02PM Edited for duplicate section

Why Are Teabaggers Willfully Ignorant? A Social Psychological Perspective

2010-06-02T14:38:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: Trish Wend

My last post discussed the tendency of so many Americans to complain about government while at the same time relying on the services it provides, all the while, likely not understanding how dependent they are on those services. One of the comments, posted by Lexcade said:

"i think the problem is that too many people are ignorant about what the government actually does but they have no interest in gaining the knowledge they need to understand. they're perfectly willing to let the pretty women on fox tell them what to believe, and they buy it without a second thought. i'm sure there's some sort of psychology term for this, but i don't remember what it is. i just call it laziness."

There is a form of mental laziness that allows us to ignore that which is uncomfortable and would require effort to correct. Cognitive dissonance is the state in which ones behavior is in conflict with one's beliefs; in this situation, the individual complains about the government intruding into their lives while at the same time knowing - perhaps unconsciously - that without government, their lives would be extremely different and very likely, uncomfortable.

In order to resolve that dissonance, you have to change either your beliefs (okay, government isn't all that bad) or your behavior (stop complaining about it or do something pro-active to change it). Somehow, waving signs and chanting pre-packaged slogans that have required no real thought doesn't quite do it.

It is very difficult to change behavior and research has found that cognitive dissonance is usually resolved by changing beliefs or attitudes. In the case of the teabaggers, the change required on either end of the spectrum is so radical that it is far more comfortable to ignore it.

In order to recognize dissonance, one must have a certain level of self-awareness and be willing to recognize the dichotomy that exists within us all. Introspection and self-improvement are not fun and one of the reasons that I know I have had a successful counseling session is if my client cries. Real work is not easy or comforting and to accomplish anything lasting requires what one of my professors called "kicking it down into the basement and keeping it there."

In social psychology, we learn that one of the strongest social desires is to be liked. In a group, we tend to accommodate our beliefs and desires to those of the group and over time, resolve any conflict within ourselves by telling ourselves that those are our real beliefs. We tend to associate with and like those who are most like us, and studies have shown that when presented with negative information, we tend to think better of people that we like and rationalize away the negative information. We also tend to believe that people we like believe in the same way that we do and people we don't like, don't (all cats are animals, therefore, all animals are cats). If someone is different, we are quick to believe the worst and given the choice, will ignore exculpatory evidence weighted in favor of a stranger over proof of wrong-doing against someone we like.

Whether it is some sort of genetic/tribal memory or environmental conditioning, most people fear that which is different and the teabaggers, most of whom are not highly educated, fear the changes brought by an African-American President and a Democratic Congress. Rather than listening, they respond on an emotional level which limits the ability to reason. By leading with emotions, people are then extremely vulnerable to politicians and pundits who cater to that vulnerability (read Fox).

By projecting their feelings of inadequacy onto others, people such as the teabaggers are able to blame others (the government, immigrants, the Democrats, liberals, etc.) for everything that is wrong in their lives. One social theory is based on social structuralism and agency theory. How does the individual fit into society? How much agency does the individual really have? Agency means how autonomous is the individual? How much free will can they exercise? It is thought that within the social structure, we all have a certain place and manner of behavior based on the existing structure (people act towards us as we expect them to, we react as they expect us to and so on). With greater agency, we are able to affect that structure and our place in it. The greater our knowledge of social structure and the greater our own self-awareness, the greater our own agency.

In psychology, we look at the locus of control - is it internal or external? A healthy individual has an internal locus of control, meaning that they look to themselves for agency. They take responsibility for their own actions whereas someone with an external locus of control blames everything on outside influences beyond their control. Can't get a job? Immigrants fault. No money? Government taking too much in taxes (never mind that this past year we paid the lowest taxes in decades). Everything is always someone else's fault. Life is ruled by fate, God, or others. By ceding responsibility to someone or something else, they no longer have to do anything about it. Life can continue to be lived by sitting on the poofy recliner, watching Bridezilla while eating TacoTime and letting others make all the decisions, accept all the responsibility, and write the scripts for life.

Sorry. Probably more information than anyone wanted or needed, but I can cope with ignorance - after all, we just got through eight years of No Child Left Behind - but willful ignorance on the part of the teabags and the blind obedience to party and church is just crazy-making to me. And it is willful. It's just too upsetting, depressing, confusing, boring, hard, complex, irritating, or just plain time-consuming to stay informed and be a good citizen, so they'd all rather wave their Dick Armey printed slogans, fantasize about Sarah, or daydream about whatever it is their teeny, tiny little minds dream about while they stuff their faces with cheese puffs and watch the tv machine.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sarah Palin and Her Redneck Jokes UPDATE: Link Fixed

2010-06-01T13:13:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: fanpop.com

This is a couple of weeks old, but if you missed it, it is a must read for all us Sarah Palin watchdogs. Moving from True/Slant back to Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi writes about Sarah's trolling for jokes off the internet and the decided lack of substance in her speeches. Noting that she appears to have found a successful format for her particular audience, Matt says that:

"...I don’t think you can steal more than four or maybe five jokes before some kind of line is crossed..."

Plagiarism has been in the news lately, especially as she "borrowed" a poem which she tweeted for Memorial Day, later crediting Fred Thompson's previous use to avoid the already rampant plagiarism charges.

On a side note, she seems not to understand that Memorial Day is a celebration of those who have died, not her all-purpose support for the troops that she links everything to. Don't get me wrong, I support the troops, but I don't find it necessary to include that fact as a link back to every issue, discussion, or appearance. People who find it necessary to loudly and repeatedly proclaim something about themselves be it their patriotism, religiosity, or in this case, support for the troops, usually are projecting. For a discussion of projection, go here, or here.

Sarah chuckles at her use of Google to prepare for her various appearances - still lacking the self-awareness to understand that she looked foolish by telling Glenn Beck that she Googled the Statue of Liberty prior to their interview, assuming that because of the location of the interview that he would quiz her on it. She used quote finders during her campaign and in her book, and sees nothing wrong with helping herself to whatever she likes wherever she finds it (remember the swag bags?). Does she really imagine that we want a cutesy president? Especially as most of us outgrow cutesy at about age 13.

Matt goes on to note that whatever it is that she is doing:

"She’s tuned in to the fact that her audiences literally can’t get enough of having their lunatic self-images massaged (“I’m a violent, illiterate pig who eats with her mouth open just like all you outstanding Americans!”) and aren’t really interested in much else beyond that — issues are really secondary."

"...all that boring stuff is really secondary to the more important business of reassuring her audiences that that it’s okay to be a slob who does nothing but shoot cute animals and watch TV. Most of all, Americans — the same Americans who buy everything TV tells them to buy and vote for the same shysters year after year, swallowing one lie after another whole — love to be told how tough and fearsome and independent they are."

Unfortunately, I think Matt is absolutely correct in his interpretation of her audience.

"It’s basically a risk-free strategy. You get up on stage and you say, “I’m just like all you idiots. And you idiots rock!” People will fall for this stuff. The ingenious part in Sarah Palin’s case is that she probably genuinely believes it."

I've mentioned before that we get what we deserve, and the rest of us will pay the price.

Talking to spouse last night and the point came up, what exactly do all these people think will happen if they achieve their goal of minimal government? They sit in their poofy recliners, watching their satellite dish tv machines, drinking beer and eating cheese-puffs and complain about government interference in their lives. They bitch about taxes and government takeover of healthcare as they put their twice-monthly paycheck in the bank and head off to WalMart to buy their Chinese produced toys.

If they lose their job, the first stop is the Unemployment Office where they demand that government do something for them, and if they have a heart attack from their sedentary lives, will expect 911 to send them medics in time and the emergency room staff to save them. If the neighbors are too loud, or the dog barks, they are the first to call the police to complain, and write letters to the editor or post on Facebook or blogs about those damned liberals who are trying to destroy their country.

They have no understanding of the concept critical thinking and believe that all members of their party believe as they do and if someone says they are Christian, then they share their belief. Self-awareness requires introspection and the desire to accept responsibility for those aspects of ourselves that are in need of improvement.

It is sad and it is funny, but it is also scary as too many Americans allow themselves to be lead by people who do not have their best interests at heart.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Liz Cheney, Again, Shut the F*ck Up & Go Home

2010-05-31T15:18:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: go2wordpress.com

Liz Cheney appeared on Fox this past Sunday outraged that Rahm Emanuel brought in Bill Clinton as a "cut-out" (oooh, love that 'spy' talk) to try to convince Joe Sestak not to run against Specter in Pennsylvania. She of course sees this as a major crime, never mind that President Reagan did the same thing with Senator Hayakawa, and as Juan Williams pointed out later, it is a normal part of politics - ambassadorships for example. But to Liz, if the Obama Administration does it, it's bad. if Daddy did it, it's good. So, if President Obama does something that the Bush Administration did not do or that contradicts what they did, then nothing for it but for Liz to make the rounds being outraged, which is really all she knows how to do. Seriously. Why does she get the air?

Juan Williams who is usually a total Fox apologist actually scored a few points with me by taking on not just Liz but Bill Kristol.

@Fred Thompson tweeted "Re: Clinton & Sestak: the point man on this credibility issue is only President in history to have been impeached for perjury." which is such a lovely thing for a Republican to say, considering the sexual peccadilloes of members of that party that we have been exposed to in the past year. Somehow, the most investigated couple in the history of this country, including every action taken prior to their political life, was concluded with the finding that the President lied about a question that we had not right to ask in the first place. Now, how many of those House managers had their own sexual scandals? Not wise to focus attention on sex when attacking, even Clinton.

And Liz, let's talk about perjury. Al Qaeda, Iraq, yellowcake, Niger, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, torture, enhanced interrogation, rendition, Guantanamo, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Scooter Libby, I can't recall, defying Congress because I'm VP and therefore the 4th co-equal branch of government, sending you out to shill for him. Your Daddy is a piece of work and if you look up perjury in the dictionary, his picture is there. Right next to his boss. If anyone needs to have a special prosecutor appointed, it's your Dad.

So, how about you pack it in and go away and when your Dad and his boss are ready to talk about things, under oath, to Democrats, then maybe you can criticize President Obama. Until then, you need to go home and practice your presentation and learn how to participate in discussions with other people (it's considered appropriate to wait until someone has finished their comment before talking) and how to research your 'facts' before spouting off on the national tv machine. It's been real nice not having you around for awhile and I think I speak for many others when I say that it would be nice not having you around for awhile more.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Gulf Spill NOT Obama's Katrina, and Action We Can Take

2010-05-29T11:08:00.000-07:00

The GOP and others on the right, ever seeking to find something to use to attack President Obama, have been calling the Gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina." In The New Republic, Yuval Levin in The Corner wrote:

"I think it’s actually right to say that the BP oil spill is something like Obama’s Katrina, but not in the sense in which most critics seem to mean it.

It’s like Katrina in that many people's attitudes regarding the response to it reveal completely unreasonable expectations of government. The fact is, accidents (not to mention storms) happen. We can work to prepare for them, we can have various preventive rules and measures in place. We can build the capacity for response and recovery in advance. But these things happen, and sometimes they happen on a scale that is just too great to be easily addressed. It is totally unreasonable to expect the government to be able to easily address them—and the kind of government that would be capable of that is not the kind of government that we should want.

Let’s say a major hurricane hits a large and densely populated American city with five hundred thousand inhabitants. Much of the city is below sea level, and the flood-waters that follow in the wake of the storm quickly overrun it, filling nearly every street with water, in many places fifteen feet in depth. The magnitude of human suffering and destruction of property is mind-boggling. But within six days, everyone is out of the city and in total approximately one thousand people—one in five hundred residents—lost their lives in the calamity. Hour by hour, the government response was messy and ugly—it could hardly be otherwise given the magnitude of the disaster. But looked at with a little perspective, is that really a story of a failure of government response, or is it an example of how to contend with an immense natural disaster in a densely populated urban center? Is it a model of incompetence, or the most effective mass evacuation in human history?"

It sounds almost reasonable, and if someone had no understanding of the actual role of the federal government, particularly in regard to hurricane preparedness and disaster relief, the above makes some sense. Kind of.

Kevin Drum in his column in Mother Jones, responds. What he says, in part: [emphasis added]

"This conflates two very different things. Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government."

I respect President Obama claiming that "the buck stops with me" and that he is ultimately responsible for the disaster in the Gulf. I know that he is remembering the response to President Bush after his mishandling of Katrina and, especially in an election year which historically should bring the loss of Democratic seats, is trying to show that he is the anti-Bush, but I'm not sure that he is making the right move.

Yes, the federal government must be involved and hold BP, Deepwater, and Haliburton responsible. I think the government should have taken control over BP sooner, however, it is not his responsibility. It is his responsibility to ensure that BP is held accountable in a way that Exxon was able to avoid, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the MMS is either dissolved, or restructured, but this is in no way the fault of his administration except in the sense that his Secretary of the Interior Salazar did not move fast enough to clean up the mess that he inherited.

It won't be much longer before the public gets tired of this story--we can only take so much disaster before we need to turn away--and the media directs its attention elsewhere. As citizens, it is up to us to continue to put pressure on our representatives to keep this on top of the news and to support the legislation that will remove the limits on BP's liability, and ensure that BP does not get to have all future court hearings before the judge of their choice. Ask your representatives to make sure that all hearings related to this disaster are heard in the Gulf states, not in Houston before BP's handpicked judge. Make sure that those most harmed can participate in the process and will not be limited in the damages that they can seek.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Today's Theme: Sarah Misinterprets, Again, As Does Peggy Noonan

2010-05-28T13:16:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: Louis Page

Sarah Palin:

"And you know what they say about "fences make for good neighbors"? Well, we'll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I'll try to keep Trig's squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don't disturb your peaceful summer. Enjoy!"

The poet Robert Frost actually began the poem she references with this line:

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall"

The whole point of the poem is a man wondering why he and his neighbor must rebuild their wall each spring.

There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Frost asks: 'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.'

Once again, Sarah Googles a quote and misses the point. Hugely.

Continuing with today's theme.

Peggy Noonan wrote of President Bush after Hurricane Katrina and the projected impact on his presidency:

"Is the Bush Era over? No, no, no. It has three more years. That’s a long time. History turns on a dime. There is much ahead, and potential for progress."

Of President Obama and the BP oil disaster in the Gulf?

"I don’t see how the president’s position and popularity can survive the oil spill."

She continues:

"I wonder if the president knows what a disaster this is not only for him but for his political assumptions. His philosophy is that it is appropriate for the federal government to occupy a more burly, significant and powerful place in America—confronting its problems of need, injustice, inequality. But in a way, and inevitably, this is always boiled down to a promise: "Trust us here in Washington, we will prove worthy of your trust." Then the oil spill came and government could not do the job, could not meet need, in fact seemed faraway and incapable: "We pay so much for the government and it can't cap an undersea oil well!"

She does have a point. After all, Bush never promised a government that would hold a powerful place in America--confronting its problems of needs, injustice, inequality...He just demanded that we trust him.

The problem with Noonan's piece is that:

Bush knew ahead of time what would happen and how to prevent it
He avoided New Orleans afterward
He claimed that everything that could be done was being done (heck of a job, Brownie)
Bush to this day accepts no responsibility, none, for any mistakes that were made
President Obama was in the Gulf on May 2
He has already acknowledged the mistakes made
Rather than trying to evade responsibility in an off-year election year, he is trying to ensure that the American people know what is happening and that ultimately, it is his responsibility for the failures of the MMS even though it was the Bush Administration that made the decisions resulting in this disaster

Another GOPher apologist spouting the party line. Get in line. That woman is an idiot.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Mississippi Clinic Needs Our Help - Perhaps a Donation in Our (not) Favorite Politician's Name?

2010-05-25T10:42:00.000-07:00

This morning, I received the following from Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation. Once again, a minority of Americans have decided that they get to decide how the rest of us live. Regardless of how you or I personally feel about abortion, the majority of American's still believe that it is a decision best left up to a woman and her doctor. Extremists would have you believe that wanting to allow women that choice automatically means you support that choice, conflating an extremely complex issue into a black and white, either/or question that is typical of the ignorance of the radical fringe of the extremist right.

The lives of doctors and clinic employees at Jackson Women's Health Organization in Jackson, Mississippi, are being threatened. This is the only abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi. Extremists are trying to shut down this vital women's clinic. This clinic and its doctors need our help now.

One year ago Dr. George Tiller was brutally murdered. His killer, Scott Roeder, has been sentenced to life in prison, but the extremists have not been deterred.

The leading anti-abortion extremist in Jackson is an advocate of Justifiable Homicide - or the belief that justifies the murder of doctors who perform abortions. The clinic and its doctors have been repeatedly threatened.

The clinic needs immediate help to pursue legal strategies and to enhance its security system.

Our National Clinic Access Project legal coordinator has just traveled to Jackson to assist the clinic. She met with clinic staff and community pro-choice supporters to discuss ways to improve security, to assess legal needs and to devise new ways for the local community to support this critically needed health facility. We are determined to do everything we can to keep Jackson Women's Health Organization open and its patients, doctors and staff safe.

Help the doctors, health care workers, and patients of Jackson Women's Health Organization today by making an emergency, tax-deductible contribution. Half your contribution will go directly to the clinic to help pay for enhanced security measures.

The other half of your emergency contribution will help support our National Clinic Access Project's work to keep this clinic and other besieged clinics across the country safe and open. The demand for our work is dramatically increasing.

As I write this, we are working with Dr. Carhart and his clinic in Nebraska. Dr. Carhart, who had worked with Dr. Tiller, and his clinic were immediately targeted by Wichita-based Operation Rescue after the murder of Dr. Tiller. This group had harrassed Dr. Tiller for seven years.

And we are also working very closely with Family Reproductive Health in Charlotte, NC under siege by Operation Save America/Operation Rescue. Recently, anti-abortion extremists published the photographs of and information about the clinic's doctors in a WANTED poster. Similar posters appeared before the brutal murders of two doctors in Pensacola, Florida.

Without doctors and clinic to provide safe, legal abortions and access to birth control, there can be no choice for women. Please make an emergency contribution today to help Jackson Women's Health Organization and our National Clinic Access Project.

Together we are making a difference.

If you are able to contribute, please do so here.

Just as a belief that war is wrong or that our presence in Iraq or Afghanistan means you are against the troops--that for almost all of us could not be more wrong--the GOPhers and others on the right continue to narrow the issues into sound bites and buzz words that trigger an emotional response. Once that emotional response is triggered, room for rational thought is lessened and the individual is easily manipulated in the direction that is desired. Politicians, marketing firms, and "commentators" are very aware of how easily this is done. The attack on our freedoms is well-coordinated and well-orchestrated. Witness the immediate response to Rand Paul's interview with Rachel Maddow and the immediate attacks on Rachel, not on the incoherent response to her questions. Issues are not addressed, rather the individual raising the issue becomes the issue in Tea Party land.

As an aside, during the 2008 campaign, many individuals contributed to the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund which at that time, included a stuffed wolf as a free gift with a donation. Many people had their free stuffed animal delivered to Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, they no longer offer incentive gifts, but there is always the acknowledgment card... Personally, I donated to Planned Parenthood at that time, in her name, and asked that the thank you card be sent to her and I know of a number of others who followed suit. After all, she had told Katie Couric that she was a feminist, so I know that Sarah Palin would, of course, appreciate the donation in her name...

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Thurgood Marshall Fund Responds to Limbaugh Hissy Fit About Kagan. CORRECTED

2010-05-12T12:40:00.000-07:00

Climbing onto his high horse yet again, Rush Limbaugh is having a hissy fit over the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court claiming, among other reasons, that statements made by the late Justice Thurgood Marshall about the Constitution, whom Limbaugh states that she idolizes, (idolizes? do we all 'idolize' our mentors?) disqualify her.

Limbaugh quotes Marshall as saying that;

"The Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective..."

Limbaugh continues by relating Marshall's comments about how it was only over the course of the next 200 years after the signing of the original Constitution that the people on the Supreme Court had made it worth anything. To Limbaugh, of course, this meant that Marshall was referring only to himself, because that is what he would do as everything is apparently all about him.He is outraged that anyone, particularly a Supreme Court Justice would question the Constitution. Hello? Does anyone want to tell him what the Court is for? Because it is not a perfect document, it needs people to interpret it and apply it to everyday life - thus the Supreme Court.

Has Rush ever actual read the Constitution? Does he understand that in the original, the Founders were referring only to white men, and landowning white men at that? That when they said that, "All men are created equal," they meant exactly that? Women in this country, with the exception of some individual states, were not granted full suffrage by Constitutional right until 1920 with passage of the 19th Amendment.

How about the Bill of Rights, Rush? Not included in the original Constitution. Those 1st through 10th Constitutional rights all the teabaggers get excited about are actually amendments. Including that pesky 2nd Amendment about the right to keep and bear arms, and the 10th that you Republicans love so much about states rights.

I know all you Republicans wish some of the more recent Supreme Court decisions like Brown v Board of Education (the one Marshall is most famous for, actually), and Roe v Wade had never happened, but you have to admit, if we still had just the original Constitution (which, by the way is amended because the Founders knew they were imperfect human beings and thus allowed in its creation for the amendment process to occur) our country would look very, very different. A lot like an elitist-run, no opportunity country they claim to love. Imagine that.

In a statement released today by the Thurgood Marshall Fund regarding Limbaugh's attacks, they said that;

"The story of Brown vs. The Board of Education is one of hope and courage. May 17, 1954 was a truly historic day for our nation as the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark unanimous decision striking down Plessy v. Ferguson, a holding that, since 1896, made “Separate But Equal” the law of the land and kept our nation’s schools segregated. The Brown decision not only integrated our public schools, but it ultimately opened up so many doors of opportunity wrongfully closed to people just because of the color of their skin. Thurgood Marshall, the lead attorney in the Brown case, became our nation’s first African-American Solicitor General and later the first African-American Supreme Court Justice."

"The Late Justice Marshall challenged America to continue to “Knock down the fences that divide, tear apart the walls that imprison, and reach out, for freedom lies just on the other side...”

Slavery and gender inequality were embedded in our Constitution. The Founders could not have known the changes that would occur in our world in the time since this nation was created, however, they had the vision to understand that without change, this nation would die, and thus produced a living document. A document that has embedded in its foundation that process for change.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Tasers Again, Prayer Warriors, and Sarah Palin's Advocacy of Violence UPDATED

2010-05-04T12:16:00.000-07:00

I have discussed the increasing use of tasers in our society here, here, and here. As a sociologist, I am concerned about the increasing violence and the consequences, and as a counselor, I am concerned about the effects of that violence. This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at the Women of Joy Conference and referenced the Prayer Warriors, admitting again her connection to that group whose admitted aim is the destruction of the demons that are destroying our society. Warriors. Violence. I guess anything goes if you achieve your goals.

Digby writes frequently about tasers as well and discusses here the recent tasering of a baseball fan at a Phillies Cardinals game for the heinous crime of running onto the field. Her point? We have truly sunk as low as we can get. The included comments posted to the YouTube video attached.

Randalrister thanks for postin the video, only thing us cards fans got to see was closeup video of molina laughing at him. 53 minutes ago
rustytrombone1027 Tazed his ass! Nice. 20 minutes ago

r1rav3n me and my boy were in sec 145 left field front row seats to the action. this was the greatest thing we ever seen 27 minutes ago

SavageJon123 Only a Btown kid. lol go Steve 35 minutes ago

DallasWillAlwaysSuck phuckin' hilarious, CBP rules!!!!! 45 minutes ago

StLouisKing05 this was the funniest thing i have ever seen! i sat in section 307 so i saw him hop over the wall and start running!! 49 minutes ago

CheetoSantana The smile on Molina's face was awesome 54 minutes ago

MatthewMitchell3434 I go to school with the kid hes 17
As she goes on to say;

She goes on to comment on the attitudes displayed by those making these comments;

"Real Americans don little tri-corner hats and carry on about "freedom" and "the constitution"

In my opinion, they listen to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other looney toons right-wing extremists and as Digby says;

"They are paranoid about a non-existent invasion of killer immigrants and are freaking out about a non-existent plan to send gun owners to Fema camps. They threaten to kill census workers who ask them how many times they flush their toilets."

I watch the news and see them at their Tea Parties and their marches as their tens of hundreds march in Washington as they strap on their guns, wave their "Don't Tread On Me" flags, threaten to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants (of course, never their own) when they clearly have no understanding of what they are talking about. Digby continues;

"But torture? Not a problem. Whether it's administered by the CIA or some minimum wage security guard, they seem to think electric shock, waterboarding or any other sick form of coercion worthy of the worst low rent dictator in the world is just ducky..."

This past weekend, Sarah Palin spoke at a Women of Joy Conference and referenced Prayer Warriors, something she has done in the past, including thanking their (fortunately failed) intercession during her vice-presidential campaign. The Christian religion, particularly the evangelical branch, has always had violent tendencies, rooted as it is in the Old Testament, regardless of its constant calls to praise Jesus. Evangelicals love to cite the passages that support their strong law and order tendencies (an eye for an eye as an example) and the patriarchal family structure, ignoring those passages that do not suit their modern lifestyle (only prostitutes wear red [Sarah?] and eating pork is bad...wonder what they would have said about moose meat? and the laws of usury in the Old Testament...).

Anyway, I bring this up to make the link between the increasing use of tasers, the acceptance by our culture of same, and the rise of the law and order movement alongside the Christianisation of our political system. People turn to religion in troubled times as a way to cede responsibility to someone/something else. Let God take care of you and you do not have to take care of yourself. If it is all determined by God, then you have no responsibility for your own life. Lose your job? Your home? It is God's will. (Lose an election? It is a conspiracy led by the Devil, however).

The Old Testament is full of violence and a retributive god--as opposed to the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus who taught us to love our neighbor as ourself and to turn the other cheek. It was Jesus who said that if someone steals your coat, offer them your shirt. I wonder what he would think of tasering someone for bad attitude? Just saying.

At her conference the other day, Sarah Palin said;

"I beg you, Women of Joy, to bring light and be involved, loving America and praying for her. Really, it is our solemn duty. Praying for true spiritual awakening to overcome deterioration. That is where God wants us to be. Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our Founding Fathers, they were believers. [unfortunately, Sarah, they just were not believers in what you want them to be believers in] And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life." [h/t Crooks and Liars]

Who are the Prayer Warriors? Just their name evokes images of violence, warriors, a group fighting for their cause - which is to take control of nations through an apostolic reformation. This is a group which has maps delineating where the demons are that cause all the ills of society. Through a global network of prayer chains, the warriors hope to overturn healthcare reform, maintain Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and were significant players in overturning California's Proposition 8. This group includes members of Congress, leaders in business, and where even 10 years ago might have been laughed off the front pages by media, is referenced in speeches by Sarah Palin without anyone questioning it.

Has Sarah Palin advocated the use of tasers? I do not know. Has she advocated the use of violence? Yes, indirectly. Anyone who thinks that her comment to not retreat, but reload was used metaphorically should contact me about purchasing some fairy dust. Our culture is morally bankrupt when on the one hand our citizens protest against taxes and the loss of freedom over a bill to provide healthcare to those in need, and believe that spilling blood in freedom's cause is totally acceptable, then turn around and actually ignore the Constitution (torture, denial of the 1st Amendment, 14th Amendment, suggestions to deport children of undocumented workers [remember that little part of the Constitution about anyone born in the United States...?]) and it is totally okay.

Sarah Palin and her ilk haven't got a clue. George Washington and the other Founding Fathers were deists, a fact that is well-known. No matter how many times someone says something, it is still not going to make it true. This is not, and never was, a Christian nation. The Founding Fathers were very specifically opposed to making it one. The part of the Constitution about separation of church and state was not an accident. It was included for a reason (anyone with even a basic understanding of United States history knows why this country was formed - religious freedom anyone?).

The media has given a disproportionate amount of time to reporting on the Tea Parties, Sarah Palin, and other right-wing radicals. Huge marches occur protesting immigration problems, Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Proposition 8, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and receive minimal media coverage. A few thousand Tea Partiers march in Washington and the airwaves and newspapers cover it as if it were the event of the decade.

Sarah Palin claims membership in a group that believes in demons and witches, that is connected to another group supporting a bill in Uganda that would execute homosexuals, and it is barely a blip on the radar. Christian groups rant against violence on television and in the movies and try to censor what we read and see and hear, but see nothing wrong with carrying handguns into bars or national parks (what a great combination, guns and alcohol - as someone who has worked extensively with domestic violence victims and substance abuse clients, I can safely tell you that you almost never see a DV case without the involvement of alcohol).

Right-wing extremists and Christianists blame teh liberals for the moral decay of our society, yet rape the environment (drill, baby, drill anyone?), let their constituents freeze and starve (Emmonak and Nunum Iqua just to name two) then take Franklin Graham to another village entirely and deliver cookies.

So, taser a 17-year-old boy for running onto the baseball field? Go for it. He deserves it. After all, he interrupted the national pastime! I would bet that the majority of those posting those comments would call themselves Christians, most likely Republicans, carry guns, and probably include a number of proud Tea Party Sarah Palin fans. Do I say this just because I don't like Sarah Palin? No. I say this because the Republican Party, the Tea Partiers, and Sarah Palin, (and yes, I generalize here) are people who seem to be selfish and out for whatever they can get with no thought for others or the future. They see no connection between calling themselves prayer warriors, laughing about "targeting" Democrats with gun sight maps, and a total desensitization to tasering children, the disabled, the aged, and those who are ill.

We are truly not only financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. If Sarah Palin and her followers are successful in their endeavors, then we get what we deserve.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

UPDATE 05/04/10 2:10p.m: Speaking of Constitutional Rights, John McCain was on Imus today, and declared that Faisal Shahzad, just arrested for the attempted bombing in Times Square should not have been given the Miranda Warning and that "...there are probably about 350 charges he's guilty of - attempted acts of terror against the United States..." ignoring, of course, that Shahzad is a United States citizen and even if not, entitled to Constitutional protections while in the United States. sigh. Read about it here

Additional sources include:
Crooks and Liars - Sarah Palin's Speech Women of Joy
Heads Up: Prayer Warriors and Sarah Palin are Organizing Spiritual Warfare to Take Over America
Photos: GOP Clown Collage

Palin's Time as Alaska Commander in Chief Trumps Time as Actual Commander in Chief?

2010-04-09T14:37:00.000-07:00

You just cannot ask for a more. Regulars here will know of my love of fallacies - or rather, my love of pointing them out - and with Sarah Palin at the top of the news, I get to talk about them every day if I want to. In fact, I could start a new blog dedicated to Sarah Palin fallacies. hmmm.... [brackets enclose my comments]

PHOTO: Credit Balloon Juice

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference this week, Palin responded to the news of Obama's proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty as a schoolyard fight, saying his agreement was like two kids getting ready to fight and one saying:

"Go ahead, punch me in the face and I'm not going to retaliate. Go ahead and do what you want to with me."

Going on to deride Obama's vast experience as a community organizer [compared to her vast experience as a monitor of Putin's flight path], she goes on to say that:

"No administration in America's history would, I think [she shouldn't, really, or she might remember Ronald Reagan and his life-long dream], ever have considered such a step that we just found out President Obama is supporting today."

Asked to respond to her comments, and obviously frustrated to have her remarks given that level of importance, Obama replied in as refreshingly an honest manner as we have seen. My trolls might need a review of the definitions of satire and fallacy, to appreciate the following.

Sadly No writes today of the exchange (via media of course) between President Obama and half-term Governor Palin regarding the recently proposed nuclear arms reduction treaty:

"Obama makes the common fallacious appeal to authority here, while throwing in some ad hominem and the appeal to ridicule:

“I really have no response to that. The last I checked, Sarah Palin is not much of an expert on nuclear issues,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News."

Hearing from the other side of the aisle, Confederate Yankee, whose blog banner reads "Because liberalism is a persistant vegetative state," we get the insightful comment:

"Palin’s view of nuclear weapons was shaped by her stint as the commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard, our first line of defense against Soviet nuclear weapons. Obama has held his same views since he was a stoner college student and has showed no signs of maturing."

Sadly No continues his commentary, responding to Confederate by saying:

"Amen, Br’er Owens [Confederate Yankee]. I’ve always said that when it comes to knowing nukes, two-and-a-half years as commander in chief of the Alaskan National Guard trumps one-year-and-change as commander in chief of an actual nuclear arsenal. Because 1) it’s longer and 2) don’t bogart that joint, fella!"

UPDATE: While Bob Owens is busy composing his ode to Sarah Palin’s stalwart defense of Cochinchina in the face of Red Tonkinese aggression, not to mention her leadership role in mediating talks with the Ottomans, we pause to alert you that our uppity POTUS has ’sassed’ the esteemed former part-time Alaska governor."

I would expect that people without much education would lack a basic understanding of logic, reasoning, and fallacies, but mainstream media? I understand bloggers commenting on what Sarah Palin says. I understand Fox News and other right-wing commentators reporting on the conference and her remarks. What I don't understand, is to give important to Palin's remarks about Obama's actions and to ask him, in an on-air interview, to respond. The only purpose served by such a question is to titillate the viewers and, quite frankly, to generate the level of buzz generated by blogs such as this.

As linked on Sadly's blog, The Nizkor Project contains an in-depth review of fallacies as well as a guide to arguments and logic that is well-written and easily understood. As the authors say, "In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is." If you do not (a premise, maybe two, and a conclusion), then I suggest you follow the link and review. Our "news" is full of distortions, misrepresentations, and outright lies. Everyone (including me) has an agenda. In order to wade through the overwhelming amount of information available to us, the commentary thrown at us from all sides (and yes, there are far more than two sides), we all need to hone our critical thinking skills and learn how to listen and to analyze for ourselves what we hear.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Here We Go Again. Sex Ed Teachers Threatened With Arrest For Doing Their Job.

2010-04-08T15:13:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote about CNN and their hosting of Richard Cohen, the "Conversion Therapist" who claims that he can cure homosexuality and proves it by citing his own conversion and successful marriage. Today, as reported here, a District Attorney in Juneau, Wisconsin has distributed a letter to teachers and school administrators as they begin to develop a plan to implement a new state law, The Healthy Youth Act, next fall. In this letter, DA Southworth warns teachers that should they "follow a new state law requiring them to instruct students on how to use condoms and other contraceptives" they could be arrested.

Wisconsin Act 139 requires that schools provide sex education to students utilizing "...medically accurate, age-appropriate information, including how to use birth control and prevent sexually transmitted disease. It also requires the classes to include information about how to recognize the signs of abuse and how alcohol can affect decision making." Appropriately, parents will be allowed to opt-out of the program, and schools can choose not to participate as long as they notify parents of their decision to do so.

In his letter, Mr. Southworth states that because it is a crime for anyone under the age of 16 to engage in sexual activity, providing instruction on how to utilize contraception "Promotes the sexual assault of children." Typical of the Christianist agenda, Mr. Southworth states that providing this information encourages children to engage in sexual activity and that "... our school districts should never promote illegal activity."

Referring to the Wisconsin criminal code dealing with contributing to the delinquency of minors, Mr. Southwork says in his letter that if a "... teacher knows a child is engaging in sexual activity or that the natural and probable consequences of the teacher's instruction is to cause that child to engage in sexual intercourse with a child..." they are again liable to be charged with a crime. He claims that depending on the child's behavior, the teacher could be charged with either a misdemeanor or a felony. He states that providing facts about contraception is legal, but providing instruction on their use, is "implicit encouragement."

Mr. Southworth's continues by claiming that if this horrendous action occurs, parental authority will be undermined. He says that effect, schools will be encouraging children to seek "other family members" to communicate their questions about sexuality and sexual behavior. He believes this will cause them to "... shop around for any family member who will provide the approval they want..."

And finally, any class in sex education will of course provide information on gender stereotypes and might even (oh the horror) give them information about transgender and transsexual individuals. Of course, every student must be treated with dignity and respect (right), but these new laws, according to Southworth, will disallow any instruction by the school on the morality of these controversial issues and inject "unnecessary politics" into the classrooms.

There's more, of course, but I'll ignore the fear of Planned Parenthood having access to the children of Juneau County, and the punishment inflicted on schools, families, and teachers who want to maintain high moral standards. Sigh.

Mr. Southworth claims to know what he is talking about because he deals with numerous sexual assaults as a District Attorney. I know what I'm talking about as well when I say that sex education does not increase sexual activity, it decreases it. Providing information about contraception (including the proper use) does not encourage young people to engage in sexual activity, in fact, it is more likely to discourage it. Knowledge is power, and the more we give to our young people, the more likely they are to make the right decisions. Statistics have shown that young people will be sexually active but if they have information about contraception and disease prevention, they are less likely to experience an unwanted pregnancy or STD. Classes that teach young people about the reality of teen parenthood also increase the use of contraception (you would not believe how many of my teen clients thought it would be fun to have a little baby to play with and cuddle).

Forcing religious views on everyone is wrong and that is what the Southworth's of the world are trying to do. Morality to some is all about sexual behavior. To others? It is about what happens after that behavior has occurred. Mr. Southworth claims to have knowledge of sexual assault of children, yet cannot understand that children may need the force of law to be able to have an alternate family member other than parents to speak to and for them (maybe it was Daddy that got her pregnant, after all). Demanding that we all adhere to his perspective of the family being one mom, one dad, and children denies the reality of this country, and I would bet, his county. If he wants sexual assaults of children to continue, unwanted teen pregnancies to continue, sexually transmitted diseases to continue, the teen suicide rate to remain the same, and young people making all the wrong choices about their own sexual behaviors, then he should continue to threaten the educators who should be receiving his support and appreciation.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

CNN Hits Bottom Hosting Richard Cohen and Search for "Truth" About Homosexuality Cure

2010-04-07T14:26:00.000-07:00

I remember when CNN started. As a news junkie, it was remarkable to be able to see national and world news 24/7, in-depth. There was a lot of fluff as the network went through its growing pains and tried to develop content and most of the air time was filled with the same news events recycled over, and over again. Now? CNN is hard at work trying to emulate Fox News and this video demonstrates that. It is of an exchange between Richard Cohen and California Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal, hosted by Kyra Phillips discussing an old, forgotten law that Lowenthal is trying to have repealed. The law requires medical researchers to examine the "causes and cures of homosexuality."
Many of the on-air personalities we know now started out on CNN as actual journalists--I can still hear Wolf Blitzer's panic-filled voice as he reported from Baghdad during the first Gulf War, and Greta Von Susteran reporting on the OJ trial before plastic surgery and a bleach job working as an actual legal analyst, using the skills she was trained for. Now? It seems to be all about ratings, and competing with Fox to see how much water they can carry for the right-wing extremists.

This video is appalling in so many ways that it is hard to know where to begin.

First, the lead. "Homosexuality. Is it a problem in need of a cure?" and its screen icon saying, "Finding a cure for homosexuality? California considers repealing 1950 law.

Actually, this sounds more like the National Inquirer than Fox. Of a headline we might have seen back in the 60's. The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality as a mental disorder back in the 1970's. My copy of the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Revision) has an entire chapter on paraphilias (sexual disorders) and I can assure you, homosexuality is not included (memorizing every disorder, the categories and sub-categories within each disorder and the criteria for each was part of my training). The fact that CNN would host such a show is called desperately grasping for ratings at any cost, in other situations, some might call it ... well, you get the idea.

Most of the 7:32 minute long video is taken up with conversation between Richard Cohen and Kyra Phillips. Assemblywoman Lowenthall is asked why she has put forward a bill repealing this old statute, but other than that, is given little opportunity to offer anything to the discussion. Considering that the focus of the program is not the bill or its repeal, but rather homosexuality itself, its understandable that she wouldn't have much to add.

Cohen is introduced by Phillips as a psychotherapist, and as an expert in this area because he is someone who used to be a homosexual, and thus qualified to discuss the validity of researching a "cure" for homosexuality (never mind that we did not hear about why homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder, and why the law is long-forgotten and not enforced).

Phillips either does not know or "forgot" that Cohen is no longer a psychotherapist, even though he said it quite proudly to prove the validity of his claims. [Note: remember The 10 Fallacies and the rule of inappropriate authority. Just because someone has credentials in something, doesn't mean they are an expert in other things.] The American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (and I double checked my copy prior to writing this), includes the rules that members do not seek to meet their own needs at the expense of their clients. They also must not engage in dual relationships with their clients. A dual relationship is one in which you have any kind of relationship with the client outside of that of counselor/client. For example, if you provide any kind of service to me, I can't be your counselor. If I purchase any kind of goods from you, the line becomes less clear, but again, I have to be very careful before I become your counselor. If you own or manage a business but have no personal oversight of my financial transactions (i.e., where I purchase my groceries for example), then as long as the nature of our counseling relationship remained confidential, I could continue to shop at your grocery store. I probably would not, but if it were a small town, I might not have any choice.

Another kind of dual relationship that concerns ethics committees is when counselors use their clients for their own ends or to advance their own agenda. The counselor's own opinions, worldview, political persuasion, religion, or belief system cannot enter the counseling relationship. I do not have to agree with my clients, or like what they do or how they live their life, but I do have to leave my opinion outside the door and give my client unconditional positive regard, support, and empathy. If I cannot do that, if I feel that I have to change who they are, make them into something they aren't, do something they are not comfortable doing, force them to change into something or someone else, or change faster than they are ready to change, then I have committed malpractice and could be sued, and lose (in my case) my certification and those with a license, would lose their license. I would also be kicked out of the American Counseling Association and all the other professional organizations that I belong to, each of which has a very similar code of ethics to follow, not to mention the state law that governs the rules for practice for my profession.

Why so much detail? Richard Cohen was kicked out of the American Counseling Association and is no longer a psychotherapist because he engaged in dual relationships with his clients and forced his own agenda on them (convincing them that homosexuality is "curable" and that he could convert them). Even if the clients came to him because they were unhappy with their sexual orientation, it was his responsibility to help them work through their feelings, not change their life. The counselor's job is to guide the client as they work through their feelings and make any changes that they decide need to be made, if any, in their lives. If, as counseling progresses, the client comes to realize that there are situations in their life that are not working and the counseling process has enabled them to develop the strength to make changes, then it is up to the counselor to support the client in making those changes, not force them to do what the counselor believes is the right thing to do.

In the discussion, Cohen lists as one of his reasons a concern for children and protecting them from child molesters. Many, many people are afraid of homosexuals because of fear for their children's safety. This is not to say that no homosexuals are child predators, but statistics have shown, over and over again, that the majority of child molesters are middle-aged, married, heterosexual men. Of course, parents should be concerned about any adult who is around their children, no matter who it is. Child molesters groom their victims, and their victims include the parents. Grooming includes making the victim comfortable around the molester so that the predator has the opportunity to molest. Molestation takes place in private, so the predator has to create the opportunity to have time alone with the child, and accomplishes this by creating a relationship of trust with the parents, then with the child.

Richard Cohen claimed that the American College of Peditricians had recently sent out a Fact Sheet about homosexuality that "proves" what he is saying. In this "Fact Sheet," we are told that homosexuality is a result of a combination of familial, environmental, social, and biological influences, and that 85% of youths who experience same sex attractions eventually end up as heterosexuals. Unfortunately, this is a marvelous way of dressing up the truth to look like a lie to look like a lie.

Note how they tucked in biological at the end of the list of reasons for homosexuality? It is the last of their four reasons, and I am sure they consider familial and environmental factors key (the old blame the domineering mother most likely), but as they have no answer as to why several children can grow up in the same family with theoretically the same environmental factors, they had to throw in biological factors. What they did not understand is that no two children in the same family experience the same environment. The parents are in different places, they react to each child differently, the child has different experiences outside the home, different friends, teachers, events, and reactions to those events. Even how they experience the family will be different, which goes a long way towards explaining why children from the same family grow up to be completely different people. I digress, however. Their complete lack of understanding of sociological concepts and counseling theory is as clear as their misunderstanding of scientific research.

During the developmental process, many children feel attractions to others of the same sex, and to the other sex. Does this mean they are homosexual? Or bisexual? No. It means they are normal. If they act on these feelings, will they become one or the other? No. They will become who they are. Is someone who has sex with someone of the same sex a homosexual? No, of course not. If that were true, then 80% of our prison populations are really homosexual, and all the heterosexual men (frequently married) caught in public restrooms engaging in inappropriate behavior with other men would really be homosexual. All the middle-aged, heterosexual men who molest children of both sexes would really be homosexual if their preferred target happened to be boys (and, child predators can be broken up into two categories, those who molest by type, and those who molest by opportunity - if by opportunity, gender and age do not matter, if by type, it does). So, in a way, most children who have attractions to others of the same sex end up as heterosexual, but the way this "Fact Sheet" frames it leads the reader to believe that it is simply a matter of environment.

Additionally, this "Fact Sheet" also states that homosexuality can be dangerous to men. Of course it can if the world is filled with people like this. Until our society understands that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but simply who someone is, it will be dangerous for anyone homosexual. It states that reorientation therapy works, and that pro-homosexual programs that validate this lifestyle (pretty loaded framing) are not appropriate. As long as we continue to use the language of "lifestyle choice," then people will continue to believe that homosexuality is something bad that should be treated.
The two biggest concerns I have with the stated facts, are;

"Regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, sexual activity is a conscious choice."
"...It is not the school's role to diagnose and treat any student's medical condition..."

First of all, homosexuality is not about activity. Homosexuality is about how you perceive yourself. It is how you interact with the world, and how you see yourself in relation to others. Imagine if you will, if you were told (assuming you are heterosexual), that you must choose a life partner of the same sex. That you must kiss them, hug them, be intimate with them, and have sex with them. What if you were told that your sexual urges were wrong, and that your desire to make yourself attractive to others was wrong. How would you feel? Could you be intimate with someone you felt no sexual desire for? Or someone you actually were repulsed by? How would you feel if all of your friends, family, and neighbors all had a significant other, someone to do couple things with, talk over problems with, have families with, be with, and you could not, because the person that you wanted to be with was not allowed? How would you feel if you were asked, regularly, when you were going to get married? Have children? Settle down? Or had your friends and family try to set you up on blind dates? Or your buddies told dirty jokes, or talked about their dates or sexual matters and you couldn't participate?

The second? This is a group of pediatricians (not psychologists or geneticists) talking about homosexuality as a familial and environmental problem on the one hand, and then saying the schools have no right to discuss medical problems on the other. Which is it? And, all of this being discuss by an expert who claims his expertise because he is a psychotherapist, somehow implying that it is thus a mental illness. So, family upbringing or environment (bring on the sociologists!), medical problem, or mental illness. Which? Do they even proofread their own materials? Dig a little deeper into their website, and you'll find that at heart, this is a narrow-minded group of Christian right ideologues trying to force their agenda on everyone else. Just because this group can put M.D. after their names gives them no greater voice in this issue than any other.

I feel badly sometimes that I am grateful that I am heterosexual and have not had to experience these difficulties. I have been married for what seems like forever and have raised my children without too much trauma. I don't know these things from first-hand experience, but I do know these things from talking to friends and family and clients. I do know these things because as a counselor, the required element to do my job is empathy, and having it, I can often relate too well to those around me. If you don't know or can't relate, then take a moment and stop and think. Just think.

I stopped watching CNN regularly a long time ago, but I do occasionally watch some programs. Wolf Blitzer sold out long ago. I completely gave up when John King had the White House beat because of his pandering to the Bush Administration, but I never thought I would see them sink as far as they have with hiring Erick Erickson, and now this.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Sheriff Joe Arpaio New Taser Spokeperson While Under Grand Jury Investigation. Sweet.

2010-04-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

PHOTO: criminaljustice.change.org

Today, I read that Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona has been selected as the new marketing sponsor for Taser International. In case you aren't familiar with Joe, he is currently under grand jury investigation for abuse of power, and last summer was stripped of his ability to enforce federal immigration laws, an action he refused to acknowledge. Famous for his tent city for jail inmates, humiliating downtown marches for immigration detainees, and pink underwear for prisoners, he has now decided to run for governor despite an active campaign against him by many of his deputies. Joe never lets little things like the law get in his way.

But, the Sheriff Joe's of the world could not exist without us.

I've written here and here about my concerns about the increasing use of tasers by law enforcement. In addition to my concern about the over-use of tasers, I am as concerned about a culture that accepts their use and sees little wrong with tasering teenagers, elderly women, or persons with medical conditions because, at the time, the person using the taser believed its use was necessary.

Few, other than progressive bloggers and civil rights attorneys and organizations, have questioned the fact that tasers are routinely issued to police officers assigned to schools, and that tasers are frequently used not when officers are dealing with physical violence or persons resisting arrest, but rather persons who are rude, verbally abusive, or passively resistant.

We read the news stories and shake our heads, sigh with relief that no lasting harm was done (usually), and probably believe that in some way, the individual being tasered deserved it because they were not cooperative enough with the person in authority.

Consider this. Is it possible that someone who would taser another person because they did not move fast enough, or because they had an attitude problem might be lacking in training? Or common sense? Or intelligence? Is it possible that someone who would taser a 72-year-old woman for exercising her legal right to refuse to sign a traffic ticket and was belligerent about being arrested for it might be abusing his or her authority?

Are we to comply with all orders from those "in authority" even when we know those orders are illegal, unethical, or simply wrong? Are we to comply with orders from those in authority even if we choose to accept the consequences for our actions (i.e., passive, peaceful resistance - a long-established tradition in this country), counting on the authorities to keep us safe while doing so? (I know, I remember Birmingham, and Kent State, and the 1968 conventions...).

My point, is that by increments, our law and order society is becoming inured to violence. Not just violence by criminals, or violence committed by terrorists or gang members, but violence that filters through all aspects of our lives. Officer involved shooting is something I hear on the news once or twice a month now, when in the past, it was a very rare occurrence. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have created a tolerance to torture and we have been taught to move the gauge of what is acceptable as time goes by.

I am delighted that police officers reach for tasers instead of guns, however, I would be more delighted if they were trained in anger management, conflict resolution, and basic risk assessment and didn't reach for anything at all. It is not illegal to swear at a police officer. It is not illegal to be angry (although it is illegal if you act out on that anger in a physical or threatening manner). Having attitude is not a criminal offense. Being out in the hallway without a hall pass deserves a trip to the Principal's Office, not being thrown to the floor and tased.

Taser International decided that Sheriff Joe was an appropriate spokesman for their product. They believe that using him in their marketing campaign will encourage others to buy more of their tasers. As said in the article at Change dot org,

"At the same time as Taser International boasts endorsements from the likes of Joe Arpaio, they run stories on their blog detailing how tasers save lives. They are trying to play both sides of the field, a stance that gets them into similar problems regarding the potential health risks of the weapon ... at the same time they are trying to lure police forces and consumers by flaunting the power of their weapon.
... Taser International should dump Arpaio and stop marketing their guns as safe, easy to use, every-day, self-defense products. Tasers are serious weapons, not to be fooled around with by unqualified crackpots."

There is a significant difference between a rule and a law and it would behoove our law enforcement personnel to learn the difference and save the guns and tasers for actual threats of physical violence, not threats to their inability to deal with difficult people.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

At Tax Time, RNC Shows Us Creative Ways to Expense Costs

2010-04-02T15:35:00.000-07:00

As I work on my taxes, it's good to know, courtesy of the RNC (Republican National Committee), that I can charge off alcohol purchases as office supplies and "...goodies from the girl's playground for trendsetting young women..." as meals according to this. Silly me. I was always careful to go through my receipts and separate out what are actual office supplies from other purchases, and I've never expensed alcohol (although there are occasions when it is perfectly legal to expense alcohol as a meal expense. sigh).

In an article at Huffington Post, Jason Linkins tells us about how in addition to the RNC's little problem with expensing charges at a bondage club in Los Angeles (and hey, I was just in west LA last weekend, great time, but no naked bartenders) and somehow bills from the Boyden Valley Winery in Vermont (over $700 worth) appeared on their disclosure forms under office supplies (the winery says they do not sell office supplies and I have to say, it's not the first place I would think of if I were in search of paperclips) and RNC Deputy Finance Director Debbie Lehardy decided last December that the appropriate column to list her expenses ($453 worth) at Bendels on 5th Avenue in New York was under meals. Not sure if you know what Bendel's is, but the "playground for trendsetting young women" captures it (clothes, jeweley, makeup), and no, they do not sell food any more than Boyden Valley Winery sells office supplies.

For those of you who want to say that "well, the Democrats do it, too" (as if that excuses anything), last night on Keith Olbermann's show, Karen Finney of the DNC talked about working under Howard Dean when he headed the DNC. She reported that while in New York, he was so careful of expenses that he finally let staffers use the subway rather than walk.

Chairman Steele certainly leads a charmed existence, for the Democratic Party. Clearly, after his antics of the past year without being fired, he's here through at least the 2010 election. The Democratic Party thanks him.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k