So the President Gave a Speech

As expected, he did use some of the recommendations of the Catfood Commission, and he insisted that he would protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, while simultaneously declaring that nothing was off the table for additional reforms:

Today, I'm proposing a more balanced approach to achieve $4 trillion in deficit reduction over twelve years. It's an approach that borrows from the recommendations of the bipartisan Fiscal Commission I appointed last year, and builds on the roughly $1 trillion in deficit reduction I already proposed in my 2012 budget. It's an approach that puts every kind of spending on the table, but one that protects the middle-class, our promise to seniors, and our investments in the future.

The first step in our approach is to keep annual domestic spending low by building on the savings that both parties agreed to last week - a step that will save us about $750 billion over twelve years. We will make the tough cuts necessary to achieve these savings, including in programs I care about, but I will not sacrifice the core investments we need to grow and create jobs. We'll invest in medical research and clean energy technology. We'll invest in new roads and airports and broadband access. We will invest in education and job training. We will do what we need to compete and we will win the future.

The second step in our approach is to find additional savings in our defense budget. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than protecting our national security, and I will never accept cuts that compromise our ability to defend our homeland or America's interests around the world. But as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen, has said, the greatest long-term threat to America's national security is America's debt.

Just as we must find more savings in domestic programs, we must do the same in defense. Over the last two years, Secretary Gates has courageously taken on wasteful spending, saving $400 billion in current and future spending. I believe we can do that again. We need to not only eliminate waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness, but conduct a fundamental review of America's missions, capabilities, and our role in a changing world. I intend to work with Secretary Gates and the Joint Chiefs on this review, and I will make specific decisions about spending after it's complete.

The third step in our approach is to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government's health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government's health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.

Already, the reforms we passed in the health care law will reduce our deficit by $1 trillion. My approach would build on these reforms. We will reduce wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments. We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare's purchasing power to drive greater efficiency and speed generic brands of medicine onto the market. We will work with governors of both parties to demand more efficiency and accountability from Medicaid. We will change the way we pay for health care - not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries and improve results. And we will slow the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.

Now, we believe the reforms we've proposed to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid will enable us to keep these commitments to our citizens while saving us $500 billion by 2023, and an additional one trillion dollars in the decade after that. And if we're wrong, and Medicare costs rise faster than we expect, this approach will give the independent commission the authority to make additional savings by further improving Medicare.

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs. I will not tell families with children who have disabilities that they have to fend for themselves. We will reform these programs, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment this country has kept for generations.

That includes, by the way, our commitment to Social Security. While Social Security is not the cause of our deficit, it faces real long-term challenges in a country that is growing older. As I said in the State of the Union, both parties should work together now to strengthen Social Security for future generations. But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
You can read the full text of the speech, as prepared for delivery, here.

It's better than I had feared, but I fundamentally disagree with the underlying contention that austerity is a wise strategy, so.

Discuss.

Open Wide...

Wednesday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Shaxco, publishers of the upcoming memoir Conversations About Cheese by Melissa L. McEwan and Paul T. Spud.

Recommended Reading:

Ta-Nehisi: Lies Damn Near Everyone Told Me

Helen: UK Government Equalities Office Online Survey of Transgender People

Lori: International Alliance of Activists Launches Ten-Point Action Agenda for Sexual and Reproductive Justice

Crystal: Word Cloud: How Toy Ad Vocabulary Reinforces Gender Stereotypes

Amber: Director Spotlight: Jane Campion

H. Roy Kaplan: How Much Is Enough?

Leave your links in comments...

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Ridiculous Reactionaries,

Your pearl-clutching, offensively small-minded and false outrage over Jenna Lyons' J. Crew ad featuring her painting the toe nails of her son pink is tired. It's so tired that it just needs to be put to bed. Forever. So, just stop. Also? I have something for you as a parting gift:



No love & less respect,

A Mom of A Boy Whose Favorite Color is Pink


P.S. For the people who also think these reactionaries are jackasses and say things like "my (brother/son/nephew/cousin) dressed up in tutus and make-up and he turned out just fine--he's all grown up now and he does Totally Hetero things"...I understand you may mean well but please stop using "just fine" as a euphemism for "not gay". It still sends the message, however inadvertently, that being gay or transgender or whatever it is those people think will happen to boys if they show any signs of liking "girl things" is somehow not "just fine". It is perfectly fine.

P.P.S. Image of ad below fold.

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Michele Bachmann,

My understanding is that you think it would be a good idea for presidential candidates to throw their birth certificates on the table.

I have a better idea.

I think all presidential candidates should place their brains on the table, starting with yours. I would find that to be far more revealing and helpful to the public.

Love,
Space Cowboy

Open Wide...

Meet the Candidates! Tronald Dump

Hi. I'm Tronald Dump, and I am running for President of the United States.

Now, I know what you're thinking: Who the heck is this gumball and why on earth would I vote for him? Good question! Let me tell you a little about myself.

I am, according to tens of minutes of research I did at Ancestry.com, the fifth cousin of billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump. But don't let the uncanny resemblance and our shared record of bankruptcy fool you! We are nothing alike. For one, I do not own a gold-plated toilet. For another, I believe our president is an American citizen.

Also, I have never been the star of a network reality series—although my cable access cooking show, "A Braising Grace with Tronald Dump," was very popular in the mid-nineties.

Most importantly, however, while Cousin Donnie (we have not met, but I am sure that is what he would want me to call him if we did) is a conservative, I am a liberal.

There are a lot of liberal causes that are important to me—net neutrality, habeas corpus, civil liberties—but perhaps none so close to my heart AND my brain as reproductive rights, which is why I feel it's so vital, especially now as a liberal presidential candidate, to get out there and lecture women on how stupid they are if they don't vote for me.


Listen, ladies, I don't know if you're aware or not, but the Republicans are really against abortion. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any of you gals could have missed that memo, but I know sometimes it helps to have an objective source tell you these things.

You know how they call themselves "pro-life"…? Well, that's a laugh! They're not pro-life at all. You've probably never thought of it this way before, but since Republicans don't support universal healthcare and do support wars, they're more like PRO-DEATH. And here's another protip for ya, sisters: Being against abortion is pretty hostile to your quality of life, if you don't want to have a baby.

So here's the big 411: If a Republican president gets elected, he—or SHE (feminism)—is going to replace all the decrepit Supreme Court justices with rightwingers who hate abortions and then they're going to overturn Roe v. Wade and then you're gonna be shit outta luck!

I know what you're thinking: What have you Democrats done for us lately? Well, I'LL TELL YOU. We've nominated two women (not too shabby) to the Supreme Court to stand on the line and guard Roe for the rest of you lot.

Now, I've skimmed (tl;dr) some of your complaints about how the Democrats are using abortion rights as a bargaining chip with the Republicans, and about how the Democratic executive and Democratic Senate majority aren't doing bupkis to create a counter-narrative to the national onslaught of anti-abortion bills in state legislatures, and about how the Democrats throw women's rights under the bus every time it's politically expedient, and about how the current Democratic president uses language that plays to rightwing frames on abortion rights, and all the rest of that gobbledygook, and, frankly, I don't find your arguments very compelling.

Partly that's because I didn't really bother reading them (hysterical), but mostly it's because I'm mad that you're going to ruin everything for the rest of us with your principles (wtf).

I need to get elected to protect your rights, ladies, and if that means I have to occasionally undermine your rights to do it, that's just how the game is played. You just don't understand politics, is all. It's very sophisticated stuff.

So just settle down and vote for me, Tronald Dump, Democratic candidate for president of the USA.

We all know you've got nowhere else to go, anyway—and I'm sure we can all agree like ADULTS that merely failing to protect your rights is in no way as terrible as actively attacking them.

You can read more of my detailed policy proposals to not make things worse unless I have to under "Dump on Women" at my campaign website: www.geocities.fart/dump2012.

Tronald Dump has been a fauxgressive concern troll since he first got a boner blaming Nader voters for the 2000 election that was decided by the Supreme Court. He is not related to Donald Trump.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Daft Punk: "One More Time"

Open Wide...

Whoooooooooops Your Party Is Full of Bigots!

[Trigger warning for Islamophobia, mention of sexual violence.]

Reporting from the Freedom Federation's "The Awakening 2011" conference ("Raising Our Voices: Equipping and empowering a New Revolution / Because our Faith matters. Because our Freedom matters."—sure), Think Progress' Scott Keyes shares a delightful tale of anti-Sharia activist Frank Gaffney and anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist getting all up in each other's grills about just how much bigotry in the GOP is too much. Or whatever.

Norquist has HAD IT with these extremists, people! And to put that into perspective, let us recall that Norquist has famously said shit like: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." And: "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."

Now he's a Republican moderate.

[Related Reading: "Where Did We Go Wrong?"]

Open Wide...

But We Can Be Absolutely Certain That Michele Bachmann Is a Public Embarrassment

[Trigger warning for homophobia; dehumanization.]

Asked if she agrees with the position of The Family Leader, a virulently anti-gay group in Iowa before whom she was making an appearance, that "homosexuality is a public health hazard akin to second hand smoke," Rep. Michele Bachmann couldn't come up with an answer.

Think Progress' Igor Volsky: Congresswoman, some groups — including this one, I believe — have argued that homosexuality is a public health crisis akin to second-hand smoking. I was wondering if you agreed with that.

Bachmann: Um. I — I don't have an answer on that. I don't have an answer. Why don't I have another question.
Its patently absurd that Bachmann was startled by the question and did not have a response ready. Apart from the fact that any decent person would reflexively disavow such manifest nonsense, Bachmann should have been at least minimally aware of what the group with which she was affiliating is promoting: The Family Leader (nice name, btw) considers its "public health hazard" position central to its message and actively promotes "gay conversion therapies."

That Bachmann had no reply whether she agrees with the organization's framing of gay people effectively as diseased vermin who must be eliminated for the public good is not only indicative of her appalling ethics, but evidence that her team ain't ready for primetime.

Good luck with that presidential run, asshole.

Open Wide...

Open Thread

Photobucket

Hosted by a peacock.

Open Wide...

Question of the Day

When was the last time you heard a song for the first time and became instantly enamored of it? Today I got an e-mail for a new show that's playing in NYC called We're Gonna Die by playwright Young Jean Lee, and she posted a demo of one of the show's songs.

I cannot stop listening to it, and I think I have to see the show now.

Open Wide...

Let Them Eat Bootstraps

Hey, you remember the president's bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, right? The very white, very male, and very terrifying collection of geniuses otherwise known as the Catfood Commission, for their hot recommendations to "to get people to pay more for their health care and retirement with money they don't have," co-chaired by Alan "Milk Cow With 310 Million Tits" Simpson...?

Sure you do.

And no doubt you'll be thrilled to hear that President Obama "will not blaze a fresh path when he delivers a much-anticipated speech Wednesday afternoon at George Washington University. Instead, he is expected to offer support for the commission's work and a related effort underway in the Senate to develop a strategy for curbing borrowing. Obama will frame the approach as a responsible alternative to the 2012 plan unveiled last week by House Republicans, according to people briefed by the White House."

So: Extreme right-wing plan vs. center-right bipartisan plan. Peachy!

Susie doesn't mince words: "All the hoo-hah over the Ryan plan was only to soften us up for what Obama wanted all along: The plan from his handpicked members of the Catfood Commission. Just like he did with the healthcare plan, he sat down with the players and worked out his own back-door 'bipartisan' deal to sidestep that messy democracy thing he finds so distasteful."

Also see [TW for ablist language]: David Dayen, who notes, quite rightly, that this is "a pre-emptive surrender, and a needless one at that."

Well. Only if you support progressive policies.

If you fancy yourself the next coming of Ronald Reagan, I guess everything is turning out just fucking right.

UPDATE: House Democrats have sent a letter to Obama warning him that, if he wants to retain their support, he will not include cuts to Social Security in the deficit reduction program to be outlined Wednesday night: "[W]e remain concerned that the Bowles-Simpson proposal may serve as a starting point for budget negotiations. We consider this plan to be flawed in several key areas, especially with respect to its proposed cuts to Social Security Benefits. We believe that any proposal that includes cuts to a popular, fiscally sound program lacks credibility and does not reflect the political center."

Open Wide...

Random YouTubery

Please enjoy this redonkulously adorable video of a cat playing with a dolphin:


[Via Andy.]

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Twelve dimensional chess, assholes!"—Me, upon reading that Servicemembers United, a nonprofit organization representing LGBTQ active servicemembers and veterans, was not invited to the launch of Michelle Obama's and Jill Biden's Joining Forces initiative, "a program meant to raise awareness of the challenges faced by members of the military and their families," because, according to the office of the First Lady, Don't Ask Don't Tell "still remains the law." Indeed. A law which, as Servicemembers United's executive director Alexander Nicholson points out, "does not apply to the civilians who work at their advocacy and service organizations."

[H/T to Spudsy, who wryly comments: "Don't invite, don't include."]

Open Wide...

Discussion Thread: The Killing

[Trigger warning for violence; spoiler warning for The Killing.]


Is anyone else watching the new AMC series The Killing...?

I was pretty interested in this series, because not only is it about a female cop working to solve the murder of a female victim, but half of its 12 credited producers are women, Agnieszka Holland is directing several of the episodes, and Michelle Forbes, whom I love (still need to write that post), is in it.

So, I've watched the first couple of episodes, and, even though its homage to Twin Peaks is heavy-handed and there are too many annoying reversals (three—seriously, three—"you totes think this is a dead body but whooooooops it's not—gotcha!" reversals in the first 10 minutes), I'm kind of digging it.

That said, there is still some of the voyeuristic, sexifying of violence against young women of the type endemic to Law & Order: SVU episodes and thrillers starring Ashley Judd.

That said, my expectations are admittedly pretty low, but the violence seems less pornified than usual—and it's balanced with some scenes of surviving family members' pain that feel very authentic. Watching the Larsens try to navigate conveying information to their young sons (what information? how much detail? when?) about their older sister's death is very pointed commentary about the reverberating effects of violence.

Anyway: What do you think?

[There have only been two episodes of the US series, so if you've seen the Danish series on which it's based, please don't leave spoilers in comments.]

Open Wide...

Tronald Dump

So, ever since Donald Trump starting yammering about running for president, Kenny Blogginz and I have had this running gag about a presidential candidate named Tronald Dump, who attends his campaign appearances in a Tron suit, often with a turd on his head.

This morning, as part of a tradition of granting magical wishes, I made this for KBlogz:


Now this guy looks like he knows how to run America!

Open Wide...

Mods Get to See the Darndest Things

This gem just showed up in the moderation queue. In honor of Equal Pay Day, we decided to share its rich wisdom with you all.

How do feminists justify lying about men as they do?

You all know the wage gap is a big lie -- women don't get paid any less if their lazy assess ever do the same work as men, but how often does that ever happen? Right. That 77% figure is saying women do 23% less work than men and so not surprisingly they get paid less on average. Women don't work as man hours as men, women don't do the nasty jobs men do, women don't do dangerous jobs men do, women don't do stressful jobs and women tend to take jobs with a lot of personal fulfillment. Men have careers but then men don't get to marry a woman who pays their bills.

So celebrate your day for how lazy women are while spreading the bigoted lie that women are paid less for the same work. You all know you are liars.


"I know you are, but what am I?" is about as sophisticated a rejoinder as this one deserves, I think, but feel free to discuss it. Or, you know, just point and laugh.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

As we know, spring has sprung once Dougie has sniffed a bluebonnet. This past weekend, he made our dreams come true:


a black, white, and brown King Charles Spaniel in a field of bluebonnets
Dougie in a field of Texas bluebonnets. Photo by TheLadyEve.

a black, white, and brown spaniel looks into the distance among bluebonnets
This shot reveals Dougie's new warm weather cut. Photo by TheLadyEve.

Open Wide...

You Know What You Need?

The theme from H.R. Pufnstuff:


Which is now out on DVD, by the way. Can't do a little cause he can't do enough!

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

28: The number of states in which anti-choicers "are pressuring state lawmakers to pass legislation restricting private health insurance plans from covering abortion services."

Currently, under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, private insurance companies that participate in public exchanges are allowed to provide abortion coverage. However, women seeking abortion coverage must make two separation payments - the first for abortion coverage and the second for the remaining cost of coverage.

Adam Sonfield, a public policy expert at the Guttmacher Institute (pdf) stated, "Every additional restriction is adding to the probability that insurance companies will throw up their hands and say, 'This isn't worth our time anymore.'"
Meanwhile, the Guttmacher Institute reports today that, though March 31 of this year, "legislators introduced 916 measures related to reproductive health and rights in the 49 state legislatures that had convened their regular session. (Louisiana's legislature will not convene until late April.)" Additionally:
As a whole, the proposals introduced this year are more hostile to abortion rights than in the past: Fifty-six percent of the bills introduced so far this year seek to restrict abortion access, compared with 38% in 2010.

...At the same time, legislators are proposing little in the way of proactive initiatives aimed at expanding access to reproductive health-related services. This stands in sharp contrast to recent years, when a range of initiatives to promote comprehensive sex education, permit expedited STI treatment for patients’ partners and ensure insurance coverage of contraception were adopted. For the moment, at least, supporters of reproductive health and rights are almost uniformly playing defense at the state level.
Swell.

More than 500 pieces of anti-choice legislation introduced in 49 states, with 28 states considering restrictions on private health insurance plans paying for abortions, and our allegedly pro-choice Democratic president who purportedly didn't want his healthcare bill to be "an abortion bill" cannot find time for an address to declare his solidarity with the 52% of the population whose agency and bodily autonomy are being attacked.

*rage*seethe*boil*

Open Wide...

#thingsfatpeoplearetold: You Are Strong

This started out as a comment to Brian's guest post about the #thingsfatpeoplearetold hashtag, but it got really long, so I made it its own post.

One of the things by which I was struck, once again, as I read through the shared stories, is how truly tough the life of a fat person is—and how pointedly that belies the narrative that fat people are lazy.

Totally aside from whatever factors underlie Teh Dreaded Fat—which may in some cases include a lack of exercise, for a multitude of reasons, one of which might be physical laziness—being fat, living the life of a fat person, is not a life for a lazy person. It is hard work to move every day through a world that hates you.

Facing each day of one's life knowing that what awaits is navigating a sea of prejudice squarely rooted in the basic assumption that one is less than, a disgusting, shameful figure symbolizing sloth and avarice, too contemptible to even warrant pity no less dignity and respect, is not for the lazy, nor the faint of heart, nor the weak.

Knowing that just the mere act of walking down the street is likely to elicit moos and epithets and admonishments to hide one's body away from the world, that doing something, anything in public while fat may elicit exhortations to exercise, while exercising itself elicits exhortations to stop being so fat in public, does not make for a life that suits laziness.

Having to battle doctors for basic healthcare, and employers for equal pay, and friends and family for safe boundaries, and retail clerks for clothes, and ourselves for self-worth despite a metric fuckton of internalized narratives that we deserve nothing but scorn is not for the trepidatious.

Being criticized by strangers for what one is wearing, or eating, or looks like; receiving unsolicited "suggestions" about diets and exercise and weight-loss surgery; getting back-handed compliments about having a "pretty face" or not being "that fat" or being "proportional" or some variation on doing the best with the supposedly self-evidently terrible hand we've been dealt; being corrected when you describe yourself as fat, as if it's not a neutral descriptor but something of which to be ashamed; hearing people who purport to care about us express amazement that we have found partners who love us, or have found professional success at jobs we love, or have put together a stylish outfit; these are not aspects of a life that suits laziness.

Having a thin friend or relative look you in the face and tell you that zie can't believe you are happy, when zie is not, that you have a fulfilling life, when zie does not, that you are confident, when zie is not, with the clear implication that you don't deserve to be happy, fulfilled, confident, content, loved because you're fat, is not part of a life for the timid.

Moving through a world which marginalizes fat bodies and privileges bodies not like yours, a world which is designed to facilitate and uphold that privilege, a world which indoctrinates you and everyone around you into that system of privilege and socializes you to believe is the natural and right and immutable state of the world, a world full of shills for that system of privilege and bullies who crawl out of the woodwork in droves to kick you back into line if you dare to question the message, a world decorated with images to remind you that your body is wrong, your body is bad, your body is less than, a world in which it is acceptable for people to believe that accurate conclusions can be drawn about your behavior based on your body and that expressing negative judgments based on those conclusions is their right and obligation, a world in which eliminationist language about people with bodies like yours is not considered controversial, a world in which you, your personhood, your very humanity is challenged on a near-constant basis under the auspices of concern for your "health," is not a world that indulges laziness, cowardice, or weakness.

You've got to be strong to live the life of a fat person. Strong as fuck.

People who accuse fat folks of indolence, or pusillanimity, or weakness (particular of the emotional sort) have, quite evidently, no idea of what being fat, living the life of a fat person, is really like. At least not the life of a fat person who has the unmitigated temerity to believe fervently in hir own right to exist, to participate, to live in a space, internally and externally, which isn't ruled by self-loathing.

What would it take for you to live in a world that hates you?

It takes an indomitable will to live life while fat, in the shadow of ubiquitous reminders that we're doing so in direct contravention of the expectation that we should be secreting ourselves away, and the incessant grim predictions of an allegedly imminent demise.

I've said it before and I'll say it once again: It remains a radical act to be fat and happy. If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.

Of all the #thingsfatpeoplearetold, it is a scandal and a disgrace that "You are strong" is rarely among them.

Open Wide...