And now, a shout out from The Hammock of Complacency & Dependency

Paul Ryan's response to the SOTU was a bit disappointing, I have to say. The only republican willing to come up with a Roadmap of specific spending cuts and policy changes was uncharacteristically vague, his words mostly just standard GOP doctrine. (Including swipes at England and Ireland which were just, well, ill-informed and wrong.)

The problem, as always, is that these vague platitudes may sound idyllic to some ears, but only because they are not upfront about cuts and policy changes.

Ryan's language was, most likely, constrained by the party. While I believe he's enthusiastic about his Roadmap, there is little to love in there for economists or the general public. Medicare is basically dismantled, Social Security is privatized (this, from the party that thinks too much regulatory burden has been placed on Wall Street over the last two years), and still the Roadmap wouldn't balance the budget until 2063, and the deficit still wouldn't have been addressed.

But it's really all they have. Rand Paul's proposed legislation will not go anywhere. No one else in the Republican party can name any cuts that impact the deficit in any meaningful way. They have Ryan. But his roadmap won't stand up to scrutiny or politics, and they know it.

So, we are offered pretty platitudes, because accounting doesn't win hearts and minds, in the hope that we'll keep the GOP in the majority, maybe elect a Republican resident in 2012. Keep tax breaks for their friends - and themselves. Let's not forget that congress is overwhelmingly made up of very affluent people.

That's what Ryan gave us. That, and the now-required insult for people like me, people lounging in The Hammock of Complacency and Dependency. I won't argue there's a certain amount of torpor over here, which you could interpret as complacency. But I promise you, this feels nothing like a hammock.

Also too: Joan Walsh. Justin Fox.   Yglesias.

And also likewise, I was going to say something about Bachman, but sometimes, in the face of utter stupidity, words fail. So I'll direct you here, instead.

Thanks a lot, asshole

At the gas station this morning, and this story came over my local NPR station.

One person injured during altercation at healthcare rally in T.O.

TPM's already got a link up, so the story isn't staying local. There are, as well, conflicting eye-witness accounts of the incident, who did what, the usual. The basic facts are not disputed, though: an anti-reformer and a pro-reformer mixed it up, and the anti-reformer got his finger bitten off at the first knuckle.

Depressing that a pro-reform demonstrator committed assault? Oh, absolutely. Here we've been asserting all summer that we just want a discussion based on fact, that we're trying to be rational and democratic (please note the small d), while the opposition is intent on pushing crazy paranoid junk and intimidation. And someone here in my little town just lost it and irresponsibly engaged in confrontation, and committed assault.

Dude, whoever you are: that's MY corner you just shit on, and I don't really care who started it.

That's the corner where we demonstrated every weekend from November 2002 through March 2003 against war with Iraq, the corner we've returned to many times since, to rally or to mourn. That's the corner where we stood silently while people yelled obscenities at us, that's the corner where we stood in pouring rain while Catholic schoolgirls engaged in counter-demonstration across the street.

That's the corner where I stood smiling, eyes full of tears, as teenagers gleefully and proudly joined our ranks in support of marriage equality and against discrimination in all its forms.

That's the corner where we have peacefully gathered and sometimes cried and always been respectful, reminding our neighbors that here in Reagan country, there is a liberal population.

And that's the corner where I have personally engaged in some amazing conversations, like the time a young Army recruit came to ask me to explain if we could support the troops and oppose the war. The Catholic schoolgirls I mentioned above, who were really very brave, out there in the rain, and we talked about Catholic beliefs (Pope John Paul, remember, spoke out against the invasion of Iraq), and how they could support the invasion if they understood that civilians would die.

I wasn't there last night. I haven't been there for a demonstration since shortly after prop 8 passed. I don't respond to the MoveOn organizing emails lately, because there are several people here in the Conejo who are well-connected and can be relied upon to answer the call (in fact, often several people put up the same event). They're very good at this, so I'm not much needed, really.

One thing you can generally count on at larger demonstrations is that there will be a group charged with being peacemakers. Often, their jobs will be to just keep the two sides physically apart. At the 2004 March for Women's Lives in DC, attendees were asked to come to peacekeeper training the night before. During the March, peacekeepers often formed human chains, arms linked, keeping the marchers separated from the anti-abortion protesters who staged a "die-in" at the front of the march (they were removed by law enforcement), and stationed in clumps along the way. At Camp Casey in the summer of 2005, a firm no-man's-land was monitored by both the local police (who were wonderful, and friends of the Camp) and designated campers. In both cases, in addition to the peacekeepers, all attendees were admonished at the start to refrain from engaging the other side in anger.

In TO, the corner has always been so small, 35 to 150 people, and always familiar faces. Organized peacekeeping hasn't been necessary. Individuals reminding each other to behave is really all it's ever taken. There has been no hard fast rule about crossing the street, because people who cross the street do so to shake hands and agree that we all have good intentions. 

(Ok, there was the one time I lost it on a neo-Nazi, but I'm only human and anyway once I realized I was screaming I forced myself to walk away.)

So it would seem that the conversation in this country has become so heated that even here, in little TO, the civility of the population cannot be taken for granted anymore. I'm sickened that our corner was disgraced last night. I'm wondering if I feel a responsibility to be there from now on, or if I'm having grandiose notions of just how much help am.

I have no wise conclusions as of this morning. I'm just sad, and angry too.

Incidentally, it's interesting, in a vaguely nauseating way, that the intensity of emotion over health care reform trumps the public concern over the invasion of Iraq.

My New Year's wish: surprise me

Over a month of no blogging! I think the reason is simple: nothing shocking has happened, and I am waiting for the new era to begin.

Sure, things have happened that are worthy of comment, but my capacity for shock and outrage and snark are seriously depleted.

I mean, really: is it surprising in the least that a candidate for the GOP chairmanship would send out an offensive "parody" disk to republicans around the country this season? We really don't need any more ammunition in the You Pasty Old White Boys Don't Get It And You Never Will argument, and yet, they just keep delivering. Also not shocking: the possibility that this stupid, stupid move will actually enhance his chances for the seat.

Oh but never fear, rank-and-file, your intellectual leadership has a plan! And it includes Twitter! Because Twitter and Republican are two proper nouns I'd like to see forever linked.

Bush, meanwhile, pardons a man whose father's campaign donations might effectively kill congressional republicans Eric Holder/ Marc Rich outrage machine. So then he decides to take the pardon away, within days of issuing it. Was anyone honestly taken aback by this? Has the Bush administration ever properly vetted anyone?

Congressional republicans are demanding "transparency" and there's talk of them shutting down the president-elect's stimulus/recovery plans if they don't pass GOP muster. They want "fiscal responsibility" again. Of course they do. Whatever.

Also, turns out that OSHA hasn't actually been in the business of occupational safety and health for about... 7 years. Question for the 10% of American workers who're injured on the job each year: does it surprise you that your government's chief concern has been not bugging your employer? Thought not.

Then there's the coal ash spill in Tennessee: turns out that no matter how "clean" your coal operation is, the ash still contains toxic levels of arsenic, lead, barium, chromium, and manganese; tens of thousand of pounds per year. Also turns out that the TVA asserted for days after the spill that the sludge was not toxic. Shocking, shocking shocking. Not.

And the situation in Gaza is terrifying, Bush is in Crawford riding his bike, and Condi isn't on a plane yet. Although, even if she got herself over to Riyadh or something, I don't know how much leverage she has left. And all it leaves me with is a sad sense of deja vu. It's been a long time.

So I'm waiting for a new year, and some new stories to open. A whole new cast f characters who maybe won't be so goddamn predictable and obvious and stupid.

(I had an hour or so of dismay over the Rick Warren thing, but ultimately I realize that the man I voted for reaches out in just this way, compromises in just this way, recognizing that the people who admire Warren and didn't vote for Obama and supported prop 8 need a president, too. Note to Barack, though: it'd be swell if you invited Rev. William Sinkford to the White House before his term is up this summer. Just sayin'.)

I'm waiting patiently for New Years Eve champagne, and then I'll be waiting in a cozy wash of ahhhhhh for January 20, 2009. After which I am certain there'll be lots to get worked up about, and hopefully a few surprises.

California weeps, Arkansas sticks its head up its ass

Nate Silver reminds us that the vote for prop 8 was really a generational phenom, rather than a race or class or geography phenom. And Nate is always right, about everything. At least, so far.

And Dan Savage has an oped in the NYT today, reminding us that our state may be full of stupid, but at least we're not Arkansas.

But while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah — the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 — an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.
That state’s Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are “cohabitating outside a valid marriage” from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart “the gay agenda.” Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Savage was also rather good on Colbert last night.

Bad Religion

This article in WaPo comes to me on the morning after a day full of what, for a Unitarian Universalist like myself, passes for religious ecstasy.

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.
The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.
"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Although I could argue the constitutional merits of the separation of church and state all day long, after a day like yesterday, I'm ruminating more on the very negative implications for religion in pursuing the weakening of that wall.

The tax code that the ADF has a problem with is very simple: to maintain tax exempt status, a church cannot engage in partisan political activity. We can, and do, and always have, organize issues-based advocacy. My church, for instance, has "No on 8" signs prominently displayed, because as a denomination we are passionate about marriage equality, which stems from our most basic and essential shared values.

Yesterday afternoon I attended the long-awaited dedication of our new church buildings. One of our former teens came up from college to attend with my family, it was a packed house with some overflow (we set up a simulcast in the social hall). Visitors from all over, including many clergy, UU and others from the local interfaith alliance, resplendent in robes and mantles. Powerful drums and the African Alleluia set hearts on high, and clergy from local and distant congregations congratulated us and charged us to remember who we are.

Tears streamed down my face as a local rabbi recited Hebraic verse and then exclaimed, "You are my people, my people are your people!" The minister from our sister United Church of Christ congregation recalled our long road together, and the battles we've fought and continue to fight, side by side. And then a luminary from Boston rose and gave a 15 minute old fashioned pacing rousing reminder, "We are the people who STAND UP!"

For those who don't do organized religion, it may be hard to understand, but this was one of those experiences that you want to relive over and over again.

We are the People Who Stand Up. This central part of our religious identity is what drew me to UU. Standing up together never fails to inspire in me a sense of what is divine. This means advocating for marriage equality. This means standing with the UCC in the work of the New Sanctuary Movement. This means that last week, Unitarian Universalist clergy and laity held a press conference in St. Paul calling for comprehensive sex education. This means that wherever I have marched or demonstrated, for peace, for women, for farm workers, UU clergy have always, always been at my side.

But we do not stand up beside a party or a candidate. If one polled my congregation, I think the democrats would probably hold a sizable majority, but one would also find republicans and libertarians and independents and greens. And while we are vocal and public on our issues, you will not find an Obama poster on our buildings, nor any other political candidate or partisan push. And that is as it should be.

Liberalism as a political philosophy is not the same as religious liberalism, something we try to remind our youth continually. Conflating the two cheapens religion, belies the depths that may be explored and the meaning that may be found.

The same is true for orthodox religion and conservative political philosophy. The two pollute each other, but religion comes out the big loser.

In religious terms, the larger issues of our world- war and peace and human dignity- must be examined and closely weighed against our stated values. If one is orthodox, one has sacred text and creed, and positions will be weighed against these sources, hopefully with honesty and openness. If one is religiously liberal, issues must be weighed against basic values, and one will examine the weaknesses and potholes carefully before coming to a conclusion.

What religion does not do: it does not give authority to an outside person for these considerations and conclusions.

An orthodox group may heed the word of their clergy, but supporting wholesale a political candidate or party would undermine entirely the authority of sacred text and creed. Wars were fought in Europe for hundreds of years over this: whose authority holds sway, prince's or pope's? The American answer was to give each responsibility for their own spheres, with final authority resting in the conscience (and action) of the individual.

For clergy to advocate support for a specific person or a political party means delegating to a secular body their responsibility to weigh carefully each issue through the lens of God's will. They risk, in other words, what the Hebrew Bible specifically prohibits:

Do not have any other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.

Understand idols, in this case, to mean princes or presidents or candidates or flags or posters of elephants.

For religious liberals, the responsibility for such judgment lies in each man and woman, and were our leaders exhort us to support a specific candidate or person for any secular office, that leader would be denying each of us the responsibility to think deeply and answer only to our own conscience.

Putting it another way: Clergy should cry loudly from the pulpit on issues of war. War means killing, it means inflicting inhumane conditions on many people, including the soldiers who fight. Taking a position from the pulpit on, say Iraq, and encouraging the congregation to pray for peace, or strength, or encouraging them to make their values known to decision-makers in government, this is what clergy do.

Crying from the pulpit that the flock should elect George Bush, or John McCain, or Barack Obama, because this is the man who knows best about this war: that is delegating moral authority to a single man, one that is responsible not for the conscience of the church, but for issues and actions of the secular world. That is bowing to a false god, that is removing the right of conscience from the faithful.

So, partisan political advocacy cheapens the experience of religion by delegating right and wrong to a secular body, relieving the clergy and laity from the responsibility of examining the world and our issues and how it all relates to what we say we most deeply believe. But there are practical problems for religion, too.

Take, for example, the Office of Faith Based Initiatives- which gave me shudders when Bush first announced his intention to open it. It is no secret now that the power and money of the office was, from its inception, directed to very specific religious organizations, those that would pass the muster of the "Mayberry Machiavellis" and the clerics who supported them. Only certain conservative religious groups got access and funding, liberal religious groups or those considered "weird" by traditionalist protestants did not.

Now consider election time. Is it not possible that a group who gives beds to the homeless and has funding from the office of faith based initiatives would want to keep the party that delivered this funding in power? Is the party's action on other important areas examined? Is it not possible to consider that another small group who houses the homeless but is denied access would want to oust those who run things, whether or not the party's other policies in other areas have been successful for the country?

How is religion strengthened, then, by being beholden to any political party or person?

I think these are problematic outcomes for religion, and they grow rapidly from a movement to mix private and public policy. More than one scholar has noted that the strength of religion in this country is most likely due to the very strong separation of church and state, which allows religion to flourish and deepen without state sponsorship or manipulation.

So I hope this little test case fails, and fails spectacularly. As a religious person, I resent- hugely resent- the framing of American political discourse in religious terms, and I resent the idea that it is in any way responsible for clergy to make their flocks beholden to a partisan body. As a citizen, I am as passionate about my secular government as I am about my freedom to practice my religion. Neither my government nor my religion is well served by the fundamentalist drive to conflate the two, in fact, both are threatened.

Oh, and by the way, congressman Westmoreland? Yeah, that's right, I quoted the 10 commandments, although I don't need to consult them to know how to treat people. Stupid cracker.

Updated post- stupid crackers

(sigh) I removed the previous quote and link, because until the source is verified in someway, I've decided I don't feel good about it.

h/t still goes to John Cole, who has been all over Palin's bullshit this week.

Instead of the unverified Palin allegations, I'll direct you to some hot hot Stephen Colbert.

Regarding Sarah

If you want to keep up on Palin news, Talking Points Memo is probably the best place to bookmark. Such news is slow in coming, because the campaign has decided that shielding her entirely from the mic is their best bet right now, but there are muckrakers around the country digging up bits. Bits which go entirely unanswered by the campaign, which may be as telling as the bits themselves.

I'm going to quote one of their posts at length here, because it's a very very good one. Submitted to Josh from a friend:

Campbell Brown isn't the story - people are underestimating her, as they always have. No, the story is that Tucker Bounds went on national television without material to answer what is maybe the simplest, most straightforward follow-up question any reporter can ask: "What's your evidence for that assertion?" And I suspect that the reason they canceled Larry King is not to punish CNN (it doesn't work that way) it's that they still couldn't come up with an answer to the question by the time his show aired.
Now look at this comment from McCain honcho Steve Schmidt to Katie Couric last night: "Members of this campaign went to off-the-record lunches with reporters today, and they were asked if she would do paternity tests to prove paternity for her last child. Smear after smear after smear, and it's disgraceful and it's wrong. And the American people are going to reject it overwhelmingly when they see her."
First of all, that's the first time I've heard anyone in the campaign/political press throw out the notion of paternity tests. So Schmidt is to blame for bringing that issue into the mainstream. If anyone is smearing the candidate, it's Schmidt. This is as cynical a tactic as I've ever seen in politics.

Update: I made the mistake of turning on the teevee and checking the web at the same time, and I'm about to vomit.

The teevee is giving me (predictably) a slew of surrogates explaining why American Women Will Love Sarah Palin, and the "journalists" are buying into the mommy-wars-blame-the-media shit.

Meanwhile: why the fuck aren't they asking whether she has a preacher problem? What about whether she has a fringe-freak secessionist problem?

Stuff that's so funny I lack the imagination to have made it up

Via:

Senators Craig and Vitter are cosponsoring SJ res 43, a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Not clear: whether adults wearing diapers or trolling for sex in restroom stalls are specifically included in the classes "man" or "woman".

If not racism, then what?

I have been thinking for a couple of weeks about the "If we can't have Hillary, we will elect McCain" camp. And I have been thinking that if their issue with Obama isn't race, then I don't know what it is.

Now, I do know people who are disheartened by Obama's nomination victory. They really believed in Hillary, and they're not so sure about Obama. And they frankly aren't sure what they want to do on election day.

I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about this guy and this woman.

Surely it's not about feminism. For one thing, I doubt the Texas good ole boy has been waiting and pleading with the gods for a woman POTUS his whole adult life. Sure, I'm making assumptions based on his gender and where he's from, but I'd say they're pretty safe assumptions.

Aside from that, though, there isn't any reason for a feminist to want McCain in the White House, unless they're hoping that he'll screw women over so badly that there'll be a decades long backlash against conservative patriarchy. And that would be a considerable longshot.

Policies not having to do with women? Ok, so maybe they really want a POTUS who casually tosses around the idea of bombing several million people into oblivion. They thought Hillary could do it, now she won't have the opposrtunity, and MCCain certainly loves to talk about fire power.

But for one to be exercised enough about jumping to McCain, for one to make a few waves and get some screaming into the collective consciousness, one is presumably paying attention to the politics, has some strong opinions on policy and the direction of the country. This type of person couldn't easily switch from the first serious female democratic nominee to John McCain over Barack Obama based on policy ideas, could they?

I'm doubting it.

It's race.

Fortunately, I don't belive that racism will win this time around.

Word of the day is...

Schadenfreude.

I'm sort of waiting for congressional repubs to send staffers to riot in Washington State. Until then, let us appreciate GOP Chair Luke Esser, who isn't all that big on counting votes, but apparently he does like pigs. Or he did, until HorsesAss updated their blog to remove pig-love references.


And The General has helpfully offered a redesign of the Washington State GOP's website.


If only the Washington GOP had managed to pass really great voter ID laws, I'm sure there wouldn't have been a problem.

More about Huck

Over the weekend I had "primary vote" with a bunch of teenagers. First, we listed the top 4 candidates for each party. Then we asked them what they knew about the candidates. One of the more politically aware ones said Huckabee was a religious psycho.

Mindful of the young minds (and aware of my duty not to train them into my liberal fascist kooky camp), I said, well, hang on a minute. Huck was a Southern Baptist minister, yes. But he also says that his religion compells him to be pro-life even after birth, to care for the poor, etc. So, I said, you'll have to come up with something more damning if you want to use the word "psycho".

So while I will not go reporting this back to the kids, I will state firmly that anyone who says the Constitution should be changed to be more in line with the Bible (and which set of laws would we choose? And where would one stop?) is, for practical political purposes, psycho.