Showing posts with label Whoops Your Political Philosophy Is Garbage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Whoops Your Political Philosophy Is Garbage. Show all posts

Whooooooooooooooooooops

Indiana Republicans asked Facebook users to share their "Obamacare Horror Story," and can you guess what happened, lol?


If you guessed "people overwhelmed comments with stories about how much they value Obamacare and don't want Republicans to repeal it," give yourself ONE MILLION POINTS.

[Content Note: Video may autoplay at link] My favorite coverage of this debacle is, naturally, the Indy Star's, where Ryan Martin writes with perfect Hoosier kindness that "The responses were unexpected" and "Many seemed to relish that the post didn't receive more horror stories." Ha.

Okay, enough fun. Back to business. KEEP CALLING YOUR SENATORS AND TELL THEM TO VOTE NO ON REPEALING OBAMACARE IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS!

Open Wide...

Behold Your Roosting Chickens

[Content Note: Bigotry; wedge politics; scapegoating.]

Once upon a time, the Republican Party hid its despicable platform of bigotry and social Darwinism behind a thin veil of claimed decency. They were the "Party of Moral Values," the "Moral Majority," the "Compassionate Conservatives."

It was Orwellian hogwash, but it was, if literally nothing else, a nod to the expectation that politicians not behave like unleashed monsters; that they were elected to serve some ostensible greater good.

That time has passed.

Now, the Republican primary has yielded two frontrunners whose unfettered avarice, nationalistic militarism, and seething hatred of marginalized people is fully on display, without even a perfunctory euphemism of moral superiority slapped on for appearances.

To the contrary, such adherence to quaint pretensions of decency are regarded as a sickening weakness. Genuflections to political correctness.

Gone are the dogwhistles, replaced by bullhorns.

But this is not, as many "moderate" Republicans suggest, a Republican Party that has become unrecognizable. It is, instead, a party whose leading contenders for the presidency have taken off the mask, allowing the party to be seen at long last as its actual self.

Today, Jonathan Martin and Alexander Burns for the New York Times report: "As Donald Trump and Ted Cruz Soar, G.O.P. Leaders' Exasperation Grows."

image of a fainting couch
Another day, another story about GOP elites taking to fainting couches over their gross candidates.

"The members of the party establishment," they write, "are growing impatient as they watch Mr. Trump and Mr. Cruz dominate the field heading into the Iowa caucuses next Monday and the New Hampshire primary about a week later."

They don't want Trump or Cruz, because either one of them "could utterly destroy the Republican bench for a generation if they became the nominee."

Nothing is more dangerous to the GOP brand than a nominee who flatly refuses to pretend that their policies are anything but what they actually are. This is not about morality or compassion. This is about winning.

Winning by military might. Winning by hoarding resources. Winning by upholding unfair advantages conferred by privilege.

The Republican platform has always been about winning. Winning elections, yes. But more importantly the sort of personal triumph defined by treating life as a zero-sum game, at which there are winners and losers. Makers and takers. Haves and have-nots.

Survival of the richest.

The challenge for Republican elites has always been how you convince people who aren't obscenely wealthy to vote for a platform designed to exploit them.

So they developed a strategy based on appealing to bigotry, to othering and scapegoating and victim-blaming. And then they dressed it up in cynical language about morality.

Donald Trump in particular has no use for this masquerade.

He's quite content, proud even, thankyouverymuch, to blaze through the campaign trail without any of the requisite delicacy. Because he knows that decades of building a base by fomenting hatred doesn't require it anymore.

The Republican Party has traded again and again on the conjured idea of an American golden era, circa 1945 to 1960, after boys who were ripped from the arms of their virginal sweethearts and sent to another continent to fight a great war against tyranny and despair, had returned home as men, as heroes, and set to work, every last one of them, making babies with doting wives and grabbing the American Dream with both hands in the dawn of suburbia. Scientists in white lab coats and square, black-framed glasses toiled away to make American astronauts the first on the moon, and to fill all the pretty new homes behind perfect white picket fences with fancy, new-fangled household gadgets to make life easier and more fun. Teenagers hung out at sock hops and neon-lit diners, girls longing for lavaliers and boys wondering how to get laid. Elvis' pelvis was considered a scandal, and Marilyn Monroe a bombshell. Dad had a pension and the promise of a gold watch at the end of a long career with a single firm, and Mom had a Frigidaire. And everyone was happy.

Vote for us—and we'll give you that.

Long before Donald Trump had the chutzpah to make it his actual campaign slogan, the Republican Party was promising to Make America Great Again.

But the Republican promise has always had the very same flaw as their policies: It is contingent on pretending that the complexity and complications of human existence, and the flaws of humankind, don't exist.

It's an empty promise built on an illusion, carefully constructed to conceal that America's so-called golden age was imperfect like any other, and perhaps even more so than most. Half a million of those boys who went off to war never came home—and some of them weren't boys at all, but men, who left wives and children with desperate struggles in the place where their husbands and fathers had been. Some who had come home were never the same, their bodies or minds damaged beyond real repair. Women who had been called to duty in factories or faraway lands were forcibly driven back into domesticity, segregation was a legal fact, every gay or bi woman and man had a closet of hir very own, mental illness was treated with lobotomies, McCarthy was on his Communist witch hunt, and we fought an all-but-forgotten war in Korea for three years and lost over 35,000 soldiers. There were back-alley abortions, and the KKK, and Elvis and Marilyn both died of drug overdoses.

Vote for us—and we'll restore your waning privilege, so you'll maintain the luxury of never having to care about that shit. So you won't have to think about people who don't matter to winners.

The Republicans have held out this chimera to their base—this Leave It to Beaver bullshit—as if the typical family once was, and should be again, a model of white Christian perfection that never fought, never struggled, never suffered. And never had to be subjected to interactions with people of color, or LGBT folks, or any women besides Mom and maybe a nice lady to help sons take out books on the Boy Scouts from the local library. They have held it out as if it has actually been, and as if it could be again.

And they did so even knowing that the fantasy of this nonexistent perfect America is the very thing that created the beloved "traditions" of racism, sexism, and homophobia in the first place. It has been the dangling enticement of a happy family, supported by a single secure and well-paid job, in which no one is wracked with disillusionment, dispossession, or a lack of opportunity—an invitation to join for which most Americans are never given the chance to RSVP—which created the resentment and scapegoating that are the foundations of social conservatism.

"BOOTSTRAPS!" shouted the Republican Leadership, as they deregulated consumer protections and dismantled workers' rights. "BOOTSTRAPS!" shouted the GOP's Corporate Masters, as they relocated the bootstrap factory to China. The barrel-chested barons of a new Gilded Age stood astride the bodies of those who had been condemned to less fortunate fates, singing the praises of Social Darwinism and bellowing about the superfluity of a social safety net, declaring without a trace of irony, "The government never gave me anything!" as they deposited their million-dollar checks from their latest no-bid Defense Department contract then headed off to Tiffany's to get The Little Woman a bauble with their fat tax returns. "BOOTSTRAPS!"

And when working hard failed to deliver on its enticing promises, and the only thing the Invisible Hand gave its working class believers was the finger, the promise-makers deflected accountability to the targets of that attentively nurtured hate.

If it weren't for progressives... If it weren't for feminists and gays and undocumented immigrants... If it weren't for that dark-skinned president...

People who bought into the narratives of self-determination, of rugged individualism, of bootstraps, the uniquely American myths of achievement and goodness in Manifest Destiny and Social Darwinist and Prosperity Gospel morality tales, who believed that shit, have been left with nothing but impotent anger—and, having been encouraged to make no social contract, to depend on no one but oneself, to hoard all the rewards of the success that bootstrapping was supposed to yield and share naught, they were then left with no one to blame but themselves when it all went wrong.

Which, obviously, wasn't going to do.

Fortunately, even though wealth and opportunity and security failed to trickle down, blame did not. And the promise-makers who quickly said, "Don't look at us!" were happy to provide to their disaffected base a road map to where their ire should be directed.

Now the Republican establishment is stuck with the result—their revolting (in every sense of the word) base, who still believe, and must, lest they face their complicity in having been left with naught but their biases, that the responsible party for their struggles, their disaffection, their undefined but keenly-felt fury, is those people, not the Grand Old Party who promised them something better in exchange for their votes.

The political leadership taught their base too well whom to blame for what ails them, and thus cannot now move them from their fixed gaze and finger-pointing, even as it isn't helping the party anymore—and stands likely to hurt the party for the foreseeable future. They sowed the seeds of prejudice for decades, and now they reap nothing but the only crop such seeds can yield.

So here we are.

And now the party elites have the temerity to publicly lament that the genie won't go back in the bottle.

"What happened to my party?" wonder the vanishing moderates of the Republican Party, shaking their heads gravely and publicly wringing their hands, before shuffling off to wash them of any responsibility.

You happened to your party. You and your exploitation of the darkest prejudices, the worst of human nature. You and your greed. Your careless fearmongering. Your cynical scapegoating. Your endless denials of injustice.

You happened, with your insatiable appetites for more wealth, more power, more influence, more control. You and your voracious need to win.

You happened. You and your bumper sticker sloganeering in a complicated world.

And now you shamelessly deflect blame by pretending to by mystified by why your base is rallying around a billionaire with a bumper sticker slogan stitched in gold thread on tacky hats.

Have all the fucking seats on that fainting couch. And behold your contemptible chickens as they come home to roost.

Open Wide...

Planned Parenthood Cleared by Grand Jury; Center for Medical Progress Members Indicted Instead

[Content Note: War on agency. Video may autoplay at link.]

Careful what you wish for—especially when your accusations of lawbreaking are projection:

A grand jury convened to investigate whether a Houston Planned Parenthood clinic had sold the organs of aborted fetuses on Monday cleared the clinic and instead indicted the undercover videographers behind the allegations, surprising the officials who called for the probe and delighting supporters of the women's health organization.

The Harris County grand jury indicted David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, both of California, on charges of tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony with a possible sentence of up to 20 years in prison. It also charged Daleiden, the leader of the videographers, with the same misdemeanor he had alleged – the purchase or sale of human organs, presumably because he had offered to buy in an attempt to provoke Planned Parenthood employees into saying they would sell.
Whoooooooooops!

The record-tampering charges were brought because Daleiden and Merritt made counterfeit California driver's licenses with the intent to defraud Planned Parenthood.

As you probably recall, members of the absurdly named Center for Medical Progress posed as biotech reps, and then recorded various employees of Planned Parenthood without their knowledge discussing how fetuses are aborted in order to preserve their organs for medical research and the costs of getting that tissue to researchers, then heavily edited the videos and publicly released them, prompting more than a dozen states to launch investigations into Planned Parenthood, all of which found that Planned Parenthood was doing nothing illegal nor outside normal medical practices.

This particular investigation has lasted more than two months, and not only did the grand jury find that Planned Parenthood had not broken the law, but that CMP had.
"As I stated at the outset of this investigation, we must go where the evidence leads us," said [Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson], a Republican. "All the evidence uncovered in the course of this investigation was presented to the grand jury. I respect their decision on this difficult case."
That doesn't mean that Texas' state investigation is complete, however.
Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said on Monday that the inspector general of the state's Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas attorney general's office have been investigating Planned Parenthood's actions.

"Nothing about today's announcement in Harris County impacts the state's ongoing investigation," Mr. Abbott said in a statement. "The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue."

The state attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement: "The fact remains that the videos exposed the horrific nature of abortion and the shameful disregard for human life of the abortion industry. The state's investigation of Planned Parenthood is ongoing."
Of course it is.

Well, if we're lucky, maybe that investigation will somehow culminate in indictments for Abbott and his cronies, too! Karma apparently gets her healthcare at Planned Parenthood.

Open Wide...

The Ownership Society Will Never Own This

[Content Note: Bigotry.]

screen cap of the below referenced article at The Week, with a headline reading: 'Republicans are now blaming Barack Obama for Donald Trump. Seriously.' accompanied by a photo of President Obama smirking dubiously
Perfect picture is perfect.

Paul Waldman on the Republican establishment's desperate attempt to pin the rise of Donald Trump on President Obama:
Republicans watching in dismay as Donald Trump continues to lead their presidential primary contest have almost given up trying to come up with a plan to stop him, with the spreading realization that he'll rise or fall and there's little they can do to affect that outcome. But if you can't change things, at least you can explain them, which leads to the pressing question: Whose fault is this?

Liberals have their answer. Trump, they say, is the culmination of the last seven years of Republican politics, or maybe even the last 50 years. Faced with an angry Tea Party base, the party's leadership encouraged that anger, yet couldn't deliver on any of the substantive promises they made. They told their voters to hate Washington, despise Barack Obama, and fear immigrants — and this is what they got. Go even farther back and you can find Trump's roots in the "Southern Strategy" that worked so well for so long, where Republicans fed working-class whites a diet of racial resentment to get them to sign on with an agenda that served the interests of the wealthy.

As you might imagine, this story isn't particularly appealing to conservatives. So they have a different answer, one which is now gaining increasing currency on the right. Who's to blame for Donald Trump? Why the same man who's to blame for everything that goes wrong in America: Barack Obama.

...If Trump's success is a reaction to Barack Obama, it's only insofar as he's an exaggerated version of the way all Republicans have felt, spoken, and acted toward this president over his entire presidency. Trump's voters didn't wake up a month or two ago and decide that they're nativists attracted to someone offering easy answers to complex problems. They're exactly the voters that the Republican Party has been cultivating, full of fear and anger and contempt.

...[T]hey can't pin the blame on Barack Obama. They sowed this poisonous field, and the Trump candidacy is what grew out of it. If it means they lose the White House again because of it — whether Trump is the nominee or not — they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
This sounds familiar! And let me note once again that, although Trump's candidacy may be a shitshow, the establishment Republicans pretending to have a case of the vapors over his popularity are putting on an even more detestable spectacle.

They know who their base is. They have carefully cultivated that base over decades with fearmongering, scapegoating, and dogwhistling.

They aren't really angry or scared or whatever that Trump is ascendant. They're pissed because he's shameless about reaping the benefits of generationally sewn divisions, exploiting without restraint the seething underbelly of authoritarian conservatism. He's recklessly, even joyously, exposing the bigotry on which they've traded, and made it infinitely more difficult for them to deny.

Trump has staked out the prime real estate in the grotesque mosaic of avarice, antipathy, incompetence, and corruption that movement conservatism built. He's claimed the penthouse in his party's shimmering skyscraper of shit, and slapped a giant gilded TRUMP on the front of it.

Because that's what Trump does. He isn't interested in sedate strategizing in quiet church basements. He wants a carnival that starts with a parade of ostentatious fuckery down Main Street.

And all establishment Republicans have left is to act mystified by it all, and blame Obama. Because the Ownership Society won't own their shit.

Open Wide...

Huh

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

From the Great Mysteries of Life files:

A detailed report commissioned by two major Republican groups — including one backed by Karl Rove — paints a dismal picture for Republicans, concluding female voters view the party as "intolerant," "lacking in compassion" and "stuck in the past."

Women are "barely receptive" to Republicans' policies, and the party does "especially poorly" with women in the Northeast and Midwest, according to an internal Crossroads GPS and American Action Network report obtained by POLITICO. It was presented to a small number of senior aides this month on Capitol Hill, according to multiple sources involved.

...The report — "Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities" — was the product of eight focus groups across the country and a poll of 800 registered female voters this summer. The large-scale project was a major undertaking for the GOP groups.

...When female voters are asked who "wants to make health care more affordable," Democrats have a 39 percent advantage, and a 40 percent advantage on who "looks out for the interests of women." Democrats have a 39 percent advantage when it comes to who "is tolerant of other people's lifestyles."

Female voters who care about the top four issues — the economy, health care, education and jobs — vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. Most striking, Democrats hold a 35-point advantage with female voters who care about jobs and a 26 percent advantage when asked which party is willing to compromise. House Republicans say jobs and the economy are their top priorities.

...The report is blunt about the party's problems. [It found] that Republicans "fail to speak to women in the different circumstances in which they live" — as breadwinners, for example. "This lack of understanding and acknowledgment closes many minds to Republican policy solutions," the report says. The groups urge Republicans to embrace policies that "are not easily framed as driven by a desire to aid employers or 'the rich.'"
Again, the suggestion is not to embrace policies that aren't actually total garbage, but to embrace policies that can't be "easily framed" that way.
The solutions offered include neutralizing Democratic attacks that the GOP doesn't support "fairness" for women; "deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, then move to other issues"; and "pursue policy innovations that inspire women voters to give the GOP a 'fresh look.'"
Insert all the mirthless laughter in the universe here. Just "neutralize attacks" that the GOP doesn't support fairness for women, instead of supporting fairness for women. Change the subject when abortion comes up! And try to scrape the bottom of the barrel for some new conservative idea that can be mendaciously framed to appeal to modern women. Distract 'em from the misogyny with something shiny! Terrific.

Republicans' primary problem with women is, and will always be, this: They think that we're stupid. They think that there's some way they can trick us into not caring or not noticing that their policies are crap.

They don't even have respect for the decision-making of their own current female voters. They don't realize that those (almost exclusively white, straight, married) women are casting calculated votes, too. It's just that there aren't a whole lot of women who are keen to abdicate self-interest in order to cast a vote to uphold the kyriarchy.

Open Wide...

Rick Perry: Always Terrible. All the Time.

[Content Note: Homophobia; disablism.]

After saying last week that homosexuality is like alcoholism, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry was challenged by CNBC anchor Joe Kernan to explain his comment:

"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry said Wednesday at an event in San Francisco. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

...Kernan then tried to get Perry to confront the psychological implications of his comment. The Texas Republican Party had endorsed "reparative therapy" for gays at its annual convention days before Perry made his disputed comment.

"In terms of changing the behavior of someone, you wouldn't think that someone who's heterosexual that you couldn't change them into a homosexual, or if someone who's homosexual, you don't think there should be therapy to change them into a heterosexual?" Kernan asked.

"I don't know," Perry responded. "The fact is we'll leave that to the psychologists and the doctors."

"Well, the psychologists, they've already weighed in," Kernan shot back. "They've dismissed the idea that sexual orientation is a mental disorder."

..."I don't necessarily condone that lifestyle. I don't condemn it, either," Perry concluded.
See, here's the thing: Sexuality isn't a "lifestyle." For most people, it's not a choice; for some people, it is. Either way, it's not a "lifestyle." And neither is alcoholism, which is a disease.

This is just another iteration of conservatives' bootstraps bullshit: If only you try hard enough, you can accomplish anything! Perry is saying that it's his willpower ("I have the desire not to do that") which determines his sexual orientation and health. Which is utter claptrap.

Everything always comes down to "hard work," because it's the only way to elide the institutional privilege that confers unquantifiable advantages, and the only way to elide the luck, or lack thereof, that shapes all of our lives.

What Perry is saying is reprehensible—first and foremost because it denies LGB people the right to be authorities on their own lives, denies them the expertise of their own lived experiences. And secondly because it's just more horseshit about bootstraps, that flattens the human experience and judges each life according to a metric defined by the most privileged among us.

Fuck off, Rick Perry—and take your toxic ideology with you.

Open Wide...

Your Modern Republican Party

[Content Note: Homophobia; misogyny; racism; classism; Christian Supremacy; antisemitism; violence.]

Here are a few headlines I've seen this morning, just in the course of my usual news rounds:

Republican Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert Uses House Hearing to Debate Whether Non-Christians 'Go to Hell'.

Republican Indiana State House Candidate John Johnston: "No One Has the Guts" to Let Poor People "Wither and Die".

Republican Tea Party Oklahoma State House Candidate Scott Esk Supports Stoning Gay People to Death.

Republican Tea Party Virginia House Candidate David Brat: Embrace Christian Capitalism, or Hitler Will Come Back.

David Brat's Campaign Manager Scrubs Facebook Page After Election; Compared George Zimmerman's Shooting of Unarmed Black Teenager Trayvon Martin to Abortion.

In San Francisco, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry Compares Homosexuality to Alcoholism.

Republican Iowa Senate Candidate Joni Ernst 'Appalled' by Husband's Inappropriate Facebook Posts.

(Not only did Gail Ernst call Hillary Clinton a hag; he posted "jokes" on his Facebook page such as: "What do you do if you see your ex running around in your front yard screaming and bloody? Stay calm. Reload. And try again." Neat guy. And a central part of Ernst's campaign, not just her spouse.)

Listen, I am no great fan of Democrats, but at least their members don't generally sound indistinguishable from a hate group. Both sides are not just as bad. Members of the Republican Party routinely engage in violent, eliminationist rhetoric about people from marginalized populations. This is one morning of headlines.

The Republican Party is full of vile purveyors of absolute filth. And every time I point this out, Republicans respond by calling me fat. Because that's how much they care about their party being eliminationist scum.

Open Wide...

It Continues to Be a Real Mystery Why Republicans Aren't Connecting with a Majority of Female Voters

[Content Note: Misogyny.]

Good grief:

A Texas political action committee called Boats 'N Hoes PAC will be just a memory by Thursday, according to the Republican political consultant who is the boss of the man who started it.

Houston consultant Allen Blakemore confirmed Wednesday evening that his firm's bookkeeper, Shaun Nowacki, started the PAC, which is a reference to a song from the 2008 film Step Brothers. The committee will be dissolved on Thursday, Blakemore said.

..."Texas Republicans say they want to reach out to women, to be more inclusive, but actions like this reinforce a pattern of disrespect," Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Lisa Paul said in a statement. "There's no defending the use of a derogatory and offensive term like 'hoes'. How can women possibly take the GOP rebranding effort seriously? Their consistent contempt towards women is simply unforgivable."
Welp, that pretty much sums it up.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Misogyny; gender essentialism; heterocentrism.]

"While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap. Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate. ...The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap."—Professional antifeminist dipshit Phyllis Schlafly, in an op-ed published by the Christian Post.

I've said this many times before, but I know very few couples—whether different-sex or same-sex couples—especially of my cohort or younger, for whom the "primary breadwinner" role has remained static over the course of their relationships.

There have been times in our relationship when I've been the sole or primary earner; there have been times in our relationship when Iain has been the sole or primary earner. In my experience, we're not remotely unique in that way.

And, despite being a different-sex couple, it's never been an issue between us, because neither of us has antiquated notions about gender and earning.

Schlafly has always been wrong about sex, sexuality, and gender. And she is wrong in a way that actively undermines the health of relationships in a modern culture.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"I would suggest, when we nominate people, we give them a roll of duct tape to put over their mouths so they don't say stupid things. Maybe we can win an election."—Republican Congressman from Tennessee Phil Roe, with a cool new suggestion for how to get Republican candidates to stop "saying stupid things," by which he presumably means "being too nakedly honest about our garbage policies that are so terrible."

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Reproductive policing; misogyny.]

"We should sell that message. Not in a mean way to tell people who already have made a bad decision, but if you've had one child and you're not married, you shouldn't have another one. ...We need to be telling kids 'don't have kids until you're married.' It's your best chance to get in the middle class is not to have kids. There's all kinds of ways, and we can debate...but there are all kinds of ways to stop having kids. ...You know, but we have to teach our kids that. But some of that's sort of some tough love too. Maybe we have to say 'enough's enough, you shouldn't be having kids after a certain amount.' I don't know how you do all that because then it's tough to tell a woman with four kids that she's got a fifth kid we're not going to give her any more money."—Senator Rand Paul, at a luncheon in Lexington, Kentucky, last week.

First of all: "The idea of withholding benefits from women who have more than a certain number of children is actually current policy in many states. While most programs through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or welfare) give families more money if they have more children, 16 states cap the assistance and don't give any extra money for new children if someone in the household is already receiving aid." And all that policy does is put a greater strain on a family already dependent on assistance to survive. It doesn't deter additional births (especially since access to abortion is increasingly limited for women in poverty).

Secondly, I love (as always) how this is all about telling women to "stop having kids." As if women with partners get pregnant on their own. And I also love (as always) how assistance is misrepresented as giving "her more money." An increase in assistance after the birth of another child is money for that child, not for "her."

Finally: Yes, Rand Paul, yes indeed there are "all kinds of ways to stop having kids." One of them is access to abortion. Maybe you should try supporting that, you shithead.

Open Wide...

The Anti-Choice Position Is Inherently Violent

[Content Note: War on agency; sexual violence; description of a perineum tear.]

This is a perfect example of why I say, over and over, that the anti-choice position is inherently violent:

"When a woman is raped, that's a horrible injustice against her," Live Action president Lila Rose told [CNN Crossfire] co-host Sally Kohn. "The rapist should be held to the fullest extent of the law, liable for that, culpable for that. The woman needs healing and the support of her community. But an abortion doesn't unrape a woman. An abortion just adds more violence on top of that first she endured."

...Kohn said, "You are saying, in effect, that the rapist should have more rights than the woman."

"Absolutely not," Rose insisted. "The rapist isn't allowed to kill anybody."
This is Lila Rose's shtick, and she's been peddling this despicable filth for years.

Because Rose frames her argument as "not getting an abortion," she elides the realities of pregnancy. As I've said before (and will almost certainly have occasion to say many times again, until everyone is yawning about what a goddamn broken record I am), if anyone not seeking cover under the auspices of a "difference of opinion on abortion" suggested that I should be forced to submit my body against my will to nine months of potential discomfort and pain, followed by an act that might include the skin and muscle between my vagina and anus being torn open, I don't think we'd mince words about whether they were using violent rhetoric.

And yet all Rose and her cohorts talk about is the supposed "violence" done to a fetus during an abortion. There is no discussion of the actual violence of forced pregnancy and birth.

Rose casually asserts that "abortion doesn't unrape a woman," which is correct. It does not. But what also does not "unrape" a pregnant person is further hostility to hir consent.

I'm (still) hard-pressed to see why I should be any less contemptuous of someone who seeks to legislate control of my body without my consent than I should be of the man who used physical force to make decisions about my body without my consent.

The anti-choice position is inherently violent. Their assertion that the pro-choice position is violence is nothing but sheer projection.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: War on agency.]


"I would suggest that it is very much the case that those of us in the majority support [the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act"] because it is the morally right thing to do, but it is also very, very true that having a growing population and having new children brought into the world is not harmful to job creation. It very much promotes job creation for all the care and services and so on that need to be provided by a lot of people to raise children."—Republican Virginia Representative Bob Goodlatte, during a House Judiciary Committee session on HR 7, which would "dramatically restrict women's access to affordable abortion care by imposing restrictions on insurance coverage and tax credits for the procedure. ...In reality, denying women autonomy over their reproductive lives is not a wise economic policy."

In addition to Goodlatte being straight-up factually wrong that restricting abortion is wise economic policy and also just being an indecent, autonomy-hostile creep, this is another example of what I call cultural reproductive coercion. He is literally suggesting that women et. al. be compelled to give birth against our wills because it's our patriotic duty.

There can be no meaningful choice when the context of choosing whether to parent is a space in which elected representatives of your government imply that one of the potential choices is traitorous.

Open Wide...

Another Republican for Child Labor

[Content Note: Child exploitation; class warfare.]

Joining the illustrious ranks of Newt Gingrich, Ray Canterbury, and Jack Kingston, Republican Maine Governor Paul LePage says that children should be allowed to work, because failing to support child labor is "causing damage to our economy."

"We don't allow children to work until they're 16, but two years later, when they're 18, they can go to war and fight for us," LePage said. "That's causing damage to our economy. I started working far earlier than that, and it didn't hurt me at all. There is nothing wrong with being a paperboy at 12 years old, or at a store sorting bottles at 12 years old."
Sure, there's nothing wrong with it. Except for how lots of kids who do have jobs while they're still in school are constantly tired and/or don't have enough time for their schoolwork.

This is, naturally, also an issue of privilege. A middle- or upper-class kid who wants to do a paper route, or mow lawns, or whatever, for a little extra pocket money is in a fundamentally different situation than a kid who takes on whatever work zie can get out of necessity, because hir basic needs aren't being met, because hir parents have been out of work or can't find a job with a livable wage and their government is failing them with a catastrophically underfunded social safety net.

Is it really not letting kids work that's "causing damage to our economy," or garbage conservative policy and bootstraps bullshit that's doing the job?

And, listen, I don't know what the deal is in Maine, but I can tell you that in Indiana, a 12-year-old who wants a paper route is shit outta luck in a lot of places, because they're already taken by adults who are trying to make ends meet. I can't even think of the last time I saw an actual teenager bagging groceries.

Governor LaPage was 12 years old in 1960. Things have changed.

Open Wide...

Duck Dynasty Family Statement

[Content Note: Homophobia; racism; Christian Supremacy.]

Following the Duck Dynasty patriarch's homophobic and racist treatise in GQ, and subsequent imposed hiatus by A&E, the Robertson family has released this awesome statement:

We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E's decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right. We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family.
I don't have a whole lot to say about that heap of garbage, which pretends that there is One True Christianity and imagines that rank homophobia and racism doesn't incite or encourage hatred, because it's so thoroughly contemptible that it hardly necessitates comment among people with agreement about basic human decency.

I do, however, want to observe that the Robertson family (or whatever hired spinmaster composed this dreck on their behalf) is borrowing the new conservative spin on bigotry: It's not that the ides themselves are hideously objectionable; it's just about the way they were expressed. "While some of Phil's unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse..."

Listen, conservatives: Bigotry isn't a problem that gets fixed with better PR. I am well aware of the conservative movement's investment in magic words and carefully constructed market-tested rhetoric. I am keenly aware of the history in which garbage policies (upwards wealth redistribution) have been sold to voters with clever sound bytes (trickle-down economics). And while you may still get away with some race-baiting and homophobic fearmongering and misogynist oppression using dogwhistles designed for your "traditional" base, the ongoing problem for your dwindling rump of a movement is not that the words you use to express your bigotry aren't pretty enough—it's that your ideology is unconcealably ugly.

Open Wide...

Republicans for Child Labor

[Content Note: Child exploitation; class warfare.]

Georgia Representative Jack Kingston is the latest Republican to suggest that poor children should become janitors in exchange for food. You know—so they can learn the lessons about hard work and bootstraps that their lazy parents aren't teaching them.

On Saturday, Kingston, who is vying to be his party's nominee in Georgia's Senate race next year, spoke at a meeting of the Jackson County Republican Party about the federal school lunch program.

Under that program, children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the poverty line are eligible for free meals. Students from families with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level can receive lunches at reduced prices.

But on Saturday, Kingston came out against free lunches, saying that children should have to pay at least a nominal amount or do some work like sweeping cafeteria floors.

"But one of the things I've talked to the secretary of agriculture about: Why don't you have the kids pay a dime, pay a nickel to instill in them that there is, in fact, no such thing as a free lunch? Or maybe sweep the floor of the cafeteria -- and yes, I understand that that would be an administrative problem, and I understand that it would probably lose you money. But think what we would gain as a society in getting people -- getting the myth out of their head that there is such a thing as a free lunch," he said.
Republicans think people aren't entitled to food. REPUBLICANS THINK PEOPLE AREN'T ENTITLED TO FOOD.

Republicans think poor, hungry children aren't entitled to food, and that it is a smart idea to make children who are already not getting enough calories in their daily diets do manual labor in exchange for food.

Here is the goddamned deal: If you want to support an unfettered, unregulated, unholy model of capitalism, in which some people can become obscenely wealthy by exploiting the fuck out of other people, then you don't get to call those exploited people lazy and shiftless and undeserving. What you do is SUBSIDIZE THEIR BASIC NEEDS. The end.

Kingston is, of course, not the first Republican to suggest child labor in exchange for food. Earlier this year, West Virginia State Del. Ray Canterbury said during a floor debate on a school lunch bill: "I think it would be a good idea if perhaps we had the kids work for their lunches: trash to be taken out, hallways to be swept, lawns to be mowed, make them earn it. If they miss a lunch or they miss a meal they might not, in that class that afternoon, learn to add, they may not learn to diagram a sentence, but they'll learn a more important lesson."

And in December 2011, then-presidential candidate Newt Gingrich suggested, "Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they'd begin the process of rising." And then defended that proposal by saying: "Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits for working and have nobody around them who works."

My contempt for this colossal indecency cannot be measured on a scale fathomable by human intellect.

Open Wide...

Tweet of the Day


[Content Note: References to genocidal regimes and terrorists; racism.]

screen cap of tweet authored by Republican North Carolina State Senator Bob Rucho reading: 'Justice Robert's pen & Obamacare has done more damage to the USA then the swords of the Nazis, Soviets & terrorists combined.'

He seems like a neat guy.

After people took issue with his contention that the President's initiative to give millions of people access to healthcare insurance is worse than some of the worst atrocities of the last century, Senator Rucho followed up with a second tweet reading: "Those that tweeted, put your thinking caps back on: 'The PEN is mightier than the SWORD.' Edward Bulwar-Lytton, 1839. But surely you knew that."

CASE CLOSED, YOUR HONOR.

I haven't bothered to look, because I've got better things to do, like watch paint dry and stub my toe on the piano leg for the one billionth time, but I'm guessing that either Senator Rucho and/or a number of his supporters have already made it very plain that the Senator "is no racist!" That he's just criticizing this President in the same way he would criticize anyone.

Sure.

I believe that Senator Rucho, and all the rest of the members of his totes not racist party, would indeed criticize any Democratic President for health insurance reform legislation that was originally a Republican proposal and is essentially a huge corporate handout to for-profit insurance companies. And I believe this because there is ample evidence that Republicans have no goddamn integrity. So, I definitely believe that part!

What I do not believe is that this level of hyperbole, this extremist violent rhetoric, would be aimed at a white president. And then defended. Over and over and over.

In any case, Senator Rucho and the rest of the Republican Party, come to me with your criticisms of this President's expansions of the social safety net once you have a healthcare plan of your own that's even marginally more sophisticated than: "Don't have insurance? FOAD."

Open Wide...

It's Just the Messaging

It's not their terrible, horrible, no good, very bad garbage policies. It's just the messaging:

Virginia Republicans are in the midst of a three-day gathering to sort through what happened in their across-the-board losses at the ballot box in 2013.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) spoke Saturday -- a speech in which he tried to offer a vision for how the party can start winning again. Here's the crux of the Cantor argument:

"Winning elections is about convincing the voters that the we have their back, that we're on their side. If we want to win, we must offer solutions to problems that people face every day. We have not done this recently and it has allowed Democrats to take power, it has allowed them to push their partisan politics, and even worse to enact their leftist agenda."
They just have to convince voters they're on our side. They don't actually have to be on our side! Ha ha of course not. That would be silly.

Sort of like how they need to hide their misogynist garbage policies behind less inflammatory misogynist rhetoric, rather than actually change those policies.

I'm no highly-paid political consultant with a nifty sinecure at a conservative thinktank, but it is my estimation that if Republicans want voters to believe they have our backs, they could start by changing their reprehensible position on whether people are entitled to food.

Just a thought!

Open Wide...

Compassionate Conservatism, Part Wev

[Content Note: Class warfare.]

In their continuing bid to eradicate any semblance of a social safety net, Congressional Republicans are set to let more than 2 million people lose their unemployment benefits by the end of the first quarter next year. 1.3 million will lose benefits by the end of this year. Paul Krugman explains the cruel rationale behind this decision:

Now, the G.O.P.'s desire to punish the unemployed doesn't arise solely from bad economics; it's part of a general pattern of afflicting the afflicted while comforting the comfortable (no to food stamps, yes to farm subsidies).

... Here's the world as many Republicans see it: Unemployment insurance, which generally pays eligible workers between 40 and 50 percent of their previous pay, reduces the incentive to search for a new job. As a result, the story goes, workers stay unemployed longer. In particular, it's claimed that the Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, which lets workers collect benefits beyond the usual limit of 26 weeks, explains why there are four million long-term unemployed workers in America today, up from just one million in 2007.

Correspondingly, the G.O.P. answer to the problem of long-term unemployment is to increase the pain of the long-term unemployed: Cut off their benefits, and they'll go out and find jobs. How, exactly, will they find jobs when there are three times as many job-seekers as job vacancies? Details, details.

...Businesses aren't failing to hire because they can't find willing workers; they're failing to hire because they can't find enough customers. And slashing unemployment benefits — which would have the side effect of reducing incomes and hence consumer spending — would just make the situation worse.

...So the odds, I'm sorry to say, are that the long-term unemployed will be cut off, thanks to a perfect marriage of callousness — a complete lack of empathy for the unfortunate — with bad economics. But then, hasn't that been the story of just about everything lately?
Let them eat bootstraps!

I don't know in what fantasy world Republican lawmakers are living, that they imagine people can just go out and get a job with a livable wage tomorrow.

And I am constantly awed by their utter faithlessness in other people—their persistent belief that most people are always looking for an angle, always searching for a way to scam the government so that they don't have to work. That is just completely at odds with reality.

Sure, there are scam artists. And there are also people who are regarded as scam artists who are really just people comprehensively failed by their country, who lacked even the most basic educational and employment opportunities, who have little choice but to find a way to game a system that set them up to fail. And then there are all the people who would happily work, if only they had the option.

To hear the Republicans' tell it, it's nothing but scammers and "takers" as far as the eye can see.

But being poor isn't easy. Being poor is one of the most difficult things to be in this country. Poverty is not for lazy people.

There is evidence of laziness in this debate, such as it is. But it isn't people who quite rightly want their unemployment benefits extended while their elected representatives continue to pursue austerity strategies that limit their employment opportunities. It's the conservatives making the lazy arguments about US workers, to justify their garbage policies, reality and decency be damned.

Open Wide...

Because "Freedom"

It's not like we didn't already know that these fights were coming (because they've been coming for decades, and because they are ongoing), but it's kind of terrific-horrible to see the strategy laid out so starkly:

Conservative groups across the US are planning a co-ordinated assault against public sector rights and services in the key areas of education, healthcare, income tax, workers' compensation and the environment, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.

The strategy for the state-level organisations, which describe themselves as "free-market thinktanks", includes proposals from six different states for cuts in public sector pensions, campaigns to reduce the wages of government workers and eliminate income taxes, school voucher schemes to counter public education, opposition to Medicaid, and a campaign against regional efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change.

The policy goals are contained in a set of funding proposals obtained by the Guardian. The proposals were co-ordinated by the State Policy Network, an alliance of groups that act as incubators of conservative strategy at state level.

The documents contain 40 funding proposals from 34 states, providing a blueprint for the conservative agenda in 2014.

...Details of the co-ordinated approach come amid growing federal scrutiny of the political activities of tax-exempt charities. Last week the Obama administration announced a new clampdown on those groups that violate tax rules by engaging in direct political campaigning.

Most of the "thinktanks" involved in the proposals gathered by the State Policy Network are constituted as 501(c)(3) charities that are exempt from tax by the Internal Revenue Service. Though the groups are not involved in election campaigns, they are subject to strict restrictions on the amount of lobbying they are allowed to perform. Several of the grant bids contained in the Guardian documents propose the launch of "media campaigns" aimed at changing state laws and policies, or refer to "advancing model legislation" and "candidate briefings", in ways that arguably cross the line into lobbying.

The documents also cast light on the nexus of funding arrangements behind radical rightwing campaigns. The State Policy Network (SPN) has members in each of the 50 states and an annual warchest of $83m drawn from major corporate donors that include the energy tycoons the Koch brothers, the tobacco company Philip Morris, food giant Kraft and the multinational drugs company GlaxoSmithKline.

SPN gathered the grant proposals from the 34 states on 29 July. Ranging in size from requests of $25,000 to $65,000, the plans were submitted for funding to the Searle Freedom Trust, a private foundation that in 2011 donated almost $15m to largely rightwing causes.
Destroying the government while flaunting the law and raising massive amounts of cash from reprehensible assholes. Sounds about right.

I note once more: The inherent problem with the conservative ideology of unfettered individualism is that it is intractably hostile toward and fatally incompatible with a functional society.

Open Wide...