Media does us no favors in their coverage of Steubenville. *UPDATED*

So you know and are warned, I will be using the term rape a lot in this piece. It's to emphasize a point that the term and the fact it occurred in the Steubenville case is getting glossed over, ignored, or treated as irrelevant. If it is an issue for you/causes you trouble/triggers, apologizes. But that's why I wanted to begin with a warning.


This weekend we finally had a conclusion to the much discussed trial in Steubenville, Ohio.

So, now, I debate what I can add to this result. What has to be said?

I could let the verdict stand as a final statement. But, from news to twitter trolls, people have rushed to say everything that didn't need saying, on the topic of rape to the victim herself. So many people raced to seemingly show us rape culture is alive and well in this country.

Online, many have been eager to denounce the girl raped for drinking, for being in the wrong company, for talking up. Cruelty has come quick and fast. And the point for some people is that she is in the wrong. Or, that her choices make her the one that is guilty. Or, that the true victims are the boys that assaulted and raped this girl.

CNN surprised us all by leading the way on this. As the trial results were announced and as they were being digested, CNN got to the heart of the matter.

It is just galling. There has been a bizarre obsession with these boys, who raped a girl repeatedly, carried her around, showed her off, took photos of their acts, and sent messages around bragging...But yeah, this is really rough them.

It is an amazing bit of journalism. (Particularly Crowley, who says they were found guilty of "rape essentially". What is that? Real rape? Rape rape? Legitimate rape?) But the weird disconnect is troubling. How do they see the events of the night of the crime? How about the lead up to trial? Or the trial itself? Was it all about these boys being put through an ordeal? What is it they think happen to this girl that was attacked? Who has had to relive the attack at trial? And, now is under continuing risk and threat by the city around her, even her former friends.

But, yeah, these rapist had the raw deal. Football stars, with hopes of college success, now quashed...How does this become your takeaway? Is it because they're young? Boys? Successful?

Is it that they were boys being boys? That they were celebrating? That they were having fun? That it just went a bit far? And, if only?

I am at a loss. They made a choice. And over the course of hours they made choice after choice to continue and compound their crimes. But so many media folk just wept for these boys.

And that has an effect. That effect is that it says it's too bad they had to be put on trial for what happen. It's too bad they have to pay for what happen. It's too bad they are being given a hard time for what happen. And it takes us away from what happen. They raped someone.

But for some people, that isn't what happen. And as you watch people on the news avoid using the word rape, as you see people online call this girl a liar, you see the culture that birthed the mind of Todd Akin. It's a culture that embraces ignorance, fears and is suspicious of women, and sees women that survive rape as contemptible.

Rape is a serious and severe issue. But the media and public is uncomfortable with it. How bothered are we all about the frequency of rape in the military? Are we still laughing at the lazy punchline of a man being raped in prison? Do communities angrily rally around sports teams, coaches, and stars when their are accusations of rape?

Source

And the media is not helping. It makes the token effort, but then falls down on the job in fighting the rape culture narrative. Look at the media giants you can list beside CNN that have looked at this story as a matter of the victim causing trouble or being to blame. ABC, NBC, Yahoo, AP, and USA Today. She's tearing her town apart. She was drunk. Social media is such a problem. No. Rape is a problem, a crime even. If they hadn't made the decision to rape they would be looking to college now. But, no. They chose to rape. They chose to assault and abuse a girl and then show no remorse, but brag about it.



Along with this, since the trial, CNN, MSNBC, and FOX have all now played statements from the guilty in which they use the name of the victim of their crimes. This is an underage girl who, until now, had had her name withheld by the media to protect her privacy, and keep her safe from those that are threatening her. So the 3 premier cable news networks have all outed this girl to additional scrutiny and danger. Brilliant work, asses. It's just more callousness from the media on this case.

The media has let us down quite a bit on this case. We expect more. We need better.


_____________
ADDENDUM:

I appreciated this piece looking at what we've seen of a CNN reaction to the reaction to the Steubenville coverage. CNN's reaction has been to just shrug. Apparently Harlow is shocked that people read her coverage as being one-sided. And, as a woman, she doesn't know why someone would think she would slant her coverage.

But that is what comes from being inside the bubble. It's like what happens in Washington or when reporters get embedded with the military. The lot of the media became entrenched in the attitude of Steubenville, which is pretty toxic.

As well:

... 

I don’t particularly care that Poppy Harlow and Candy Crowley are women. Gender is not an excuse and it’s disgusting to use it to dismiss valid criticisms. Women contribute to victim blaming and rape culture too but they reallyshould know better. Harlow and Crowley made a very big mistake by airing that segment. 

I’m sure they didn’t intend to come off the way they did but their intentions don’t particularly matter. What they did was contribute to rape culture.Period. The reason both need to apologize, however, is because they aren’t even aware of this. They can’t see how their segment was harmful and disrespectful. That’s a problem. With this case in Steubenville, many people have finally discovered that we don’t know that much about rape culture, victim blaming, or even rape itself. If we want to start combating sexual violence in a meaningful way, then we need to hold people accountable and completely stomp out rape culture and victim blaming. No one gets a pass because of their gender or anything else. 

...

That is the thing about rape culture. It isn't just men raping, or men dismissing rape. Women make up more than half of the human population, so if they weren't taking part in rape culture, it really would be a different problem.

So, yeah, women do take part. Some judge others, and condemn them, for not living the right way or for "letting themselves" be attacked. Some embrace cultural narratives, that put lower priority on the experience of women in the some occurrences of rape (A "drunk girl" has ruined the lives of two boys.). And when women do these things it's just as unacceptable as when men do this.

Maybe Harlow, and Crowley, are oblivious to how they came off to their audience. But that doesn't mediate the effect they have. They helped enforce this toxic culture. And that's why I am happy that people are being pissed off at it, and being sure to be heard. The comments made last week by the media cannot be allowed to be the final word.

Rob Portman, CPAC, and the GOP Mind

Conservatism is suffering many internal problems these days. But I think it all comes down to a problem changing. They are behind the times on issues like gay rights and abortion. I

True, conservatism is supposed to be drawn to maintaining old ways. But it is supposed to change some, hence conservatives embracing things like clothes wearing and fire. Change comes to all. But the "modern" conservative movement in the United States seems to have chosen to take a stand against this. Instead of advancing and changing with the times, they seem to have decided to become more entrenched and vitriolic.

But in this day, sometimes, we see a little change. We see some eye opening and self-reflection. This last week offered up Republican Senator Rob Portman as an example of this. Having learned that his son is gay, he's' been moved to reexamine policy he's pushed and attitudes he's held.

Source

And I'm willing to take him at his word on this. Trying to complain about why he changed how he feels immaterial. If he changes his voting pattern and his advocacy now, it's hard not to be happy.

He's come in contact with and been affected by a part of the world he was oblivious to. Great. For that matter, I am pleased if wants to join the fight to guarantee rights.

It doesn't undo the suffering he's helped cause, co-sponsored DOMA, defended Don't Ask Don't Tell, supported constitutional bans on gay marriage. But if he wants to change now, and take heat from Conservatism for it, good for him.

Okay?

For most of us, empathy and contact help shape our worldviews. We meet and talk with people different then us and it helps shape how we think. Or, we like to learn, and that leads us to an awareness of other groups and cultures, and their histories and issues. And through these venues, we grow and change ourselves, and we are concerned about how we impact them ( By what we say, what we do, what laws we endorse and vote for.).

Portman has opened himself up to ONE group now. Will he do it for others? Does he consider how his votes affect his daughters health? Does he have family who've been financially wiped out by an illness that he considers as he  is drafting bills?

This the problem of the GOP mind. It's closed off from to looking too far passed itself. When the GOP pushes anti-gay law, they don't think too hard about how it will affect gay people. Or, how anti-women law will affect women (Though you may have noticed the number of times some, if not all, the Republican women have broken ranks in the passed few years on women's issues.). When they cut aid to the poor, it's something cut from a group that is just a caricature and stereotype. Their laws and impact are not fully measured, beyond how they advance ideology and agenda.

And they continue down this destructive track, except in those rare cases where it personally affects them. Look at Chris Christie and Peter King. They took very quick turns to supporting some federal government spending and presidential action, once their states were hit with calamity. They got a heaping dose of personal effect dumped right on. Still, passed that event, they both struggle to comprehend the needs of other Americans. The sneer at government aid still resides on their faces, once the matters where they are personally affected pass.

The GOP just struggles with empathy.  It's what we see with recent talk on immigration reform. They keep talking about how it will win them Hispanic support. They don't talk near enough about it being the right thing to do, it's just a vote winner. And that is just sad.

And you see the sensibilities they now cling to played out in a cartoonish manner at this week's CPAC event. It wasn't well attended, from what I saw, but it reflects how Conservatism is thinking, voting, legislating, and impacting the United States.

People who need financial help are lazy and looking for handouts. Women who want an abortion are bad people. Gays are choosing to be shunned. Blacks and Hispanics are...You know how they talk.

Getting angry at people for being different sells at this event. The poor are to be derided. Foreigners are to be sneered at. And government aid is to be stopped. It's the same angry rhetoric they drag around to every event, every year. The times, the places, the experiences of people in nearby communities, all irrelevant. The anger is what matters. They live in a sick cycle.

And cycle is what it is. They try to ensure from the earliest age possible to keep kids limited to acceptable knowledge sources. Then as they grow up, keep them limited to resources for information, and get them to shun and hold other sources in contempt. And, if they succeed, they have someone who goes to Liberty U, listens to Rush Limbaugh, watches FOX News, and chuckles when someone calls the rest of the media, the lame stream. The bubble is complete, on to the next generation.

But then, every once in a while, something hits them in their own lives. They open their eyes just a bit and notice the world around that they impact. And, maybe, they decide to care and be more aware. They decide to help and grow as a person. And, sometimes, they recoil and get angrier and seek places to toss blame, retreating further into the bubble.

So, I am happy Portman has gotten some sense, on one issue. The rest of the country awaits his awakening on their concerns as well. And the whole of the country awaits the GOP and Conservatism awakening to the reality and needs of this nation.

The GOP chairman was eager to call CPAC a great representation of what the Republicans, and conservatism, is now. This is an event that had people talking about how good slavery was for black people. Unbelievable.

WAKE UP! CPAC is over, and it's time to get up and open your eyes to this concerns and needs of the country.

Don't hit snooze again. Time to face the reality outside your bubbles, and in reality.

Saint Patrick's Day: Let's Get This Céilidh Started!

March 17th is almost upon us. You know what that means...

It's the shamrockiest!

Sniff my butt, I'm Irish.

...Oh... And it's Saint Patrick's Day season.

So get yourselves up and get to work aping Irish culture. You know, wearing green, wearing funny hats, talking in a funny accents, and... getting plastered on watery American beer?

And that's the feast day of St. Patrick!

Okay, okay. I know I have been one to point out that holidays grow and change, and break out of cultures or religions. And St. Patrick's has done that to an extent. But it is also odd to me that it's a national holiday as well. So people act out certain stereotypes  And I'm not fond of perpetuating stereotypes. Of course, it's also become a day that the Irish like to promote cultural awareness, if you keep an eye out for events. As well, like Mardi Gras and Christmas, this day is also just an excuse to have a party, do some dancing, and, maybe, wear some green. ...And I do love green.


So let's get back to it's origins. (Now YOU Must Learn. HAHAHAHAHA!)


March 17th is deemed to be the date of St. Patrick of Ireland's death. It's said he was then buried at Down Cathedral in Downpatrick, Down County. Common for the day, St. Patrick, patron saint of Ireland, was never officially canonized by a pope and church. It was more a regional decision. But from that start his sainthood has been embraced by the Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal  and Orthodox churches. It took time for him to gain acceptance, but more and more he was acknowledged in the church. So, he got a feast day, and became a rallying point in Irish culture. But that's the end of the his tale.

Looking at the start is a little trickier. He is considered to be a Romano-Brit, of noble birth. His family had been in the religion business at that point for generations. Early in his life he was captured by Irish raiders and taken to Ireland as a slave. He later was able to return to Britain. He entered the Church then, and after rising to bishop was sent back to Ireland to convert the island to Catholicism (and fight crime as a proto-Zorro -- But that may just be my own head canon. Or I may be confusing the Green Bishop with the Green Hornet.). And with that he descends into legend.

The trouble with stories and writing of Patrick's time in Ireland is that it is not necessarily clear what is him and what is others that were evangelizing before and after him in Ireland. As often happens when cobbling together history, legends, or parables, the names may be changed and events altered to protect the innocent...or just make a better/easier to understand story.

Before Patrick was sent to Ireland, Palladius was sent to Ireland on the same mission, becoming the first bishop in Ireland. So some of his writings, words, and actions likely were blended in to the activities of Patrick.

But Patrick is remember for the overall effort to bring Christianity to dominance in Ireland. Which did occur. (And once the Magdalene Asylums were set up, it was smooth sailing for Ireland. We will be taking no questions.) That is where the imagery of St. Patrick driving the snakes out comes from, the conversion of people from Druidic faith to his own (We'll hope it was just converting.). It may be similar to the story of St. George and his "dragon".

It's like the story of his walking stick which would become a tree. The story goes he would plant it in the ground and preach. Then when he found it had taken root in the place, he would move on. Get it! It's alluding to something. It's cute...kinda.

Then their is the embrace of the shamrock, three-leafed clover. It is said that Patrick used it to describe the concept of a Holy Trinity (Insert your own sex act joke here. Whoa hey!), and then carried and wore them as a symbol to people. They say that.

Trouble is, can you actually tie the shamrock to any of his direct teachings. Because it seems to only arise as tied to him more than 1,000 years after his death. So, like with so many tales and legends, St. Patrick may have been rebooted and upgraded. Perhaps shamrocks had started to be used as a symbol of trinity or the crucifix, perhaps it had become more significant to people, and it was decided to go back and tie it to this significant religious figure.

Going back long before Patrick, the shamrock was a revered image in Ireland. It was green, which was an important symbol to them. And it represented the number three, also significant to the early peoples of Ireland. So it is not hard to imagine, like in other lands and times, Christian proselytizers taking advantage of the symbol and it's parallels to further sell the faith. It's just a question of if it was a practice predating Patrick, of his making (but no records survived), or just adopted later on. I could not say. Still, no one cares, and here we are, with a shamrock. And people seem to love them.

But what about the vaunted four-leaf clover then? If the three-leafer represents the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what's the fourth one for then? This...

Finally! A positive image of Ireland.

Yes, yes, their is a corny explanation:

"The first is for faith, the second is for hope, the third is for love, and the fourth is for luck."

But, come on! Leprechauns. Leprechauns! That's where it's at. It's always the answer.

At least it's better than faith, hope, love, and luck...Yeesch.


So, a millennia later all the pieces were falling in place for St. Patrick's Day.

• We have the snakes. 

Though I think most of us forget about them. They aren't dragons.

• We have our shamrocks.

Good for shakes, pendents, and easily recognizable Irish logos.

• We also have parades.

...Which aren't an Irish or Patricky idea at all... It's an American thing. But the Irish have taken to it...after 200 years. I'll be honest, and say I'm not big on parades. But if you like them, it's your lucky day.

• And theirs the beer.

Beer. As I noted in looking at Mardi Gras, we are in Lent now. So I wondered how a St. Patrick feast day would work. And even in Ireland their are times during which bars were required to be closed on the 17th. Apparently, most Catholic churches give dispensation for people to eat and drink on the 17th. A loophole to fasting in the in the Catholic Church, I don't believe it! Still, any out on fasting is a good one. So enjoy!


And in ending, I wanted to be sure you knew that, yes, their are people being huge pills about the fun side of St. Patrick's:

Christian leaders in Ireland have expressed concern about the secularisation of St Patrick's Day. In The Word magazine's March 2007 issue, Fr.Vincent Twomey wrote, "It is time to reclaim St Patrick's Day as a church festival." He questioned the need for "mindless alcohol-fuelled revelry" and concluded that "it is time to bring the piety and the fun together.

Trying to ruin a good time. It's just for Christmas anymore. Has someone seen if Sarah Palin wants to write  a book on this?

It's Pi Day. Get your compass. Get your fork.

It's Pi Day!



Yes. It's that time every year where all of us math nerds can get giddy at the date, March 14th. As in 3/14. (Yeah, in Europe it's 14/3. Don't point that out to us. It's magic!)

3/14. Or, 3.14. Pi! Woo!!! ...I. Said. Woo!!!

Let's hear it for the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter! Oh yeah!

Still...It's only semi-amazing. Wait until 2015. 3/14/15?

Mathematicians will be going mental.

New Pope, Old Problems

New Pope! New Pope! New Pope!

Pope Francis I: Lovechild of Alec Guinness and Jonathan Pryce.
Really, doesn't he look like George Smiley undercover?

It's a Francis! The first one. He's also the first Jesuit. He's also the first pope coming from the Americas (though an Italian family), Argentina to be precise.

And everyone went mental at the news. He's so nice, so friendly, such a shunner of wealth and privilege. Great. What will change now? What can kind of person...pope is he?

So the good:

• Long standing concern with poverty and inequality. 

"We live in the most unequal part of the world, which has grown the most yet reduced misery the least. The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."

This is nice. A stand on poverty and how it impacts people is good. And if the pope is speaking out on economic inequity, that will be grand. Maybe some of the conservatives in the US will listen and learn. (No. I know they won't listen or learn.)

• He's been refusing a many of the trappings of his post as cardinal up to now. He takes the bus. He lives in smaller rooms in Buenos Aires.

How will this translate? He has to live in the palace. He has to be driven in the popemobile. So will his philosophy carry over? And how? ...And was he still using his summer home?

• Spoke out against priest that won't baptize children born out of wedlock.
• Has shown sympathy for those suffering from AIDS.

It's nice. But if he wasn't sympathetic, he's be a horrible person. Still, the are positives.


In Between:

• Opposes Liberation Theology

It is an interesting thing. One of the outgrowth of Liberation Theology is the idea that their is inequity that leaves some poor and put upon. Yet Francis opposes LT. It seems, while he supports it's economic message, it's social and political messages do not meet with his approval.

The church has been hostile to it's advocates for some time now. And it's criticism of church hierarchy and authoritarianism may not be things the pope agrees with. Nor may he care for the view of Jesus as a revolutionary looking to bring upheaval and change to society. Nor it's ties to Marxism.

It is really no surprise to see a pope selected that opposes this view. At least the economic message will be addressed, we hope.


The problems:

• Opposes gay marriage.

He's called gay marriage a plot again God, and openly opposed gay marriage law in Argentina.

“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

• Opposes gay people adopting children.

He's said it's a form of abuse to allow gay people to adopt.

• Opposes abortion access.
• Opposes birth control.

He has talked, in relation to abortion and contraception, of "the culture of death".

All of the above is par for the course within the Catholic Church hierarchy  Still, it shouldn't be forgotten that these are stands in the church. They are stands having negative impacts in the United States, and around the world.

• There are questions on whether he collaborated with the military dictatorship of Argentina in the 1970's in actions that lead to numerous deaths, including priests.

What seems clear is that there was complicity between the Catholic Church in Argentina and the military. Now, the question is who in the church, and what? I have not heard any evidence supporting that the pope is tied to deaths, though it has been alleged. The question is, how did he handled being a religious leader during this time of military rule and abuse.

Remembering those
that disappeared.

It was a complex thing in those years. Religious groups were drawn in, obliged, threatened, and/or in league with oppressive rulers. Some priest were present at torture sessions. Some shared information with the military. Some argued against people's treatment. Some were brutally murdered. All of this is part of the reason Liberation Theology arose.

One journalist has written a book that says the pope, while in Argentina, hide away political prisoners of the military. He was hiding them for the military. He placed these prisoners at his holiday home on the island El Silencio, while human rights delegates were in the country. This would mean he worked with the military to hide prisoners so they would not be seen or talked to by outsiders. This is all claimed by the book.

I have not heard this story verified, or if there is another side to the story. He has said that he spoke up for some priest that were arrested to get them freed, and helped some escape the government. This is his position, and what he's been willing to talk about. There is obviously more to the events of this period in Argentinian history.

Sadly, I have not seen any news people here in the US look into it.

It's almost St. Patrick's Day...So let's talk Christmas!

Or, Christ's Mass with the Palins.

Pay attention to me!

Sarah Palin is trying to get into the limelight again, following her fall from the heights of punditry. And, one could go into her, her family, and the sad pursuit of fame. So many posts, pieces, and tweets cover it. Still, her ridiculous schemes for validity offers a chance to talk on some of the tired fears and claims that Conservative Christians like to trot out annually.

This morning I went on twitter and was presented with the suggestion that Sarah Palin (late of FOX News, later of governing, even later of failed campaigning, and never of relevance) would be writing a new book. This time it would be on the great and dire War of Christmas.

Hey! A Christmas tree!
Just in time for...
World Kidney Day.

Oh, Christmas. Forever the pawn of villainous secular progressives, out to destroy you.

It is a favorite refrain for conservatives. It implies liberals are all godless (or non-Christian, which is the same thing) and trying to take away presents from kids. It's kind of like the way they say the president wants to take away people's health care, money, and then place them education camps. Both statements have no real bearing on reality.

So let's considered how Christmas is being bombarded by secularism. As people like Palin suggest, it's being homogenized, it's being commercialized  and it's marginalized or ignored. Hmm? Interesting points. They are bull pucky, but scary to some people.

Christmas, as a religious event...is a religious event. That should be self-evident. If you are a church goer, you know how yours treats the day and the season. You have hymns, passages, and rituals you turn to, year after year. In the home's of the most pious, things no doubt run just as when dad and granddad ran things. So what is the wartime attrition being dealt with? It seems churches and homes seem to be able to operate, in their space, as always. Christians remember the day and tale well enough.

No. What is obviously meant is the public space, and business space. Once Christians could be assured that they were exclusively catered to, and now they have competition for attention. Sometimes people will put up menorahs (They don't understand them, but they want to be friendly.), or snowmen and Santa, to be inviting to all. But being inviting to all isn't what Conservative Christians want from Christmas. It is all supposed to be about them.

Christians are not getting the preferential treatment they are used to. Suddenly it's harder for them to see and receive to their preferential seating in the great banquet of society. (Though don't worry. Many places still give Christianity special dispensation in the community.) Suddenly, city halls, city parks, and town squares are not automatically handed over to church interests for the month to use as they have in the past. Instead, these spaces are seen as the property of all Americans. So, in some cases, anyone can put up messages or imagery on public property, to celebrate their tradition. In other cases, it is left neutral to the season. And in other cases, it is left open and unused.

Mangers/creches aren't being guaranteed funding or center stage status in towns. And for some this is a great crime against religion. It's an affront to the faithful (Christians). And, yes, that is silly. It's ridiculous to hear. In my city, in a very red state, I saw no manger scenes at city hall or in the major park that had Christmas lights up. But mangers were EVERYWHERE, on front lawns, at churches, etc. , it's just not being sponsored by government. (Side note: I was pleasantly surprised when I realized that none of the lights at the park were set up to reflect any religious scene, just reindeer, snowflakes, etc. And they blasted Christmas music through the park, and I noticed it was all nonreligious. It was way too much country music, but it was about the winter and the secular holiday stuff. Because that is what it is all about these days. And I also noticed how everyone would pass through the park and enjoy it. And they could do this before or after going to church, if they wanted. But I saw a place where people of all cultures and traditions were welcomed. And, to some, that is a bad thing.)

Christians are not getting the same level of priority and deference. And this, to Conservative Christians, is victimization. Instead, other faiths are also acknowledged, or just seasonal frivolity is enjoyed. And, to Conservative Christians, this is victimization.

Society has changed. We no longer just tolerate Others in our communities. We celebrate them, just as we celebrate ourselves (Whoever "them" are, or "ourselves" are.). Things are not centered just on the white christian male perspective (THIS REALITY IS STILL BUFFERING.).

And, is "it" commercialized? Yeah. Welcome to how every holiday and event is treated. And, welcome to Capitalism. You don't like? Ha ha ha ha ha! But, really, how many of the people complaining also sell Christmas items to make a buck? ...Like a book on the War on Christmas?

It is all silly. But it is also a go to paranoid money maker. From Palin to Bill O'Reilly to Bryan Fischer. It's all about a silenced voice. The excising of Jesus from society, the evil plot of it all. And when you're raised to not be aware of the world outside your home, home school, or church/megachurch, it can be damn scary to hear.

But I have to break this to you, societies change. American society, and even Christian societies, change and shift over time. Religion often desperately works to keep things frozen in place and time, but it's inevitable

Do you know why more and more people say "Happy Holidays" now? Looking passed fear of "PCness", other religions, and evil liberal agendas, we've simply changed as a people. That's it. Some people found it annoying to say "Merry Christmas and a Happy New Years". Then some people found it awkward to wish Jewish people a "Merry Christmas", and Jewish people no doubt didn't care that much for it. And then the holiday expanded to swallow the month, and...for a lot of people it just became natural to say. Society shifted. And I know people, from Sarah Palin to Richard Dawkins, are pissy about the change in greetings. Sorry, old timers, the world's moved on. And soon enough it will move on in someway, leaving me behind. As it is, I noticed that I still use terms like Christmas tree, Christmas lights, etc. Many don't say that now, but they are terms I've used since childhood. My vernacular may prove to be anachronistic before long. And I am fine with that. That is life. Sadly for Conservative Christians, it's war.

This change does anger some faithful. Faithful who want communities to honor their faith before all, who want a one day holiday honored in daily greetings for a whole flipping month, and who want to kill Santa (Yeah. It can go both ways.).

Oh, yeah. This is way better than
being part of a moving and
changing modern world.

But, you know, that is fine. If you don't like all the fancy and alien affectations glomming onto your special day, you can celebrate it how you like, in church and at home. And many groups do that, sticking to their ways and shunning the modern and impure. But, Sarah Palin, and others like her, don't want that. They want the world to revolve around them. They don't want to do without TV, cars, reality shows...buttons. The only people that actually find really standing heading off are nutty as Glenn Beck.

The reality is that they don't care that much.They don't care about Santa Claus, or Easter Bunnies. All the new bits and pieces that have been added over centuries are fine to them. The Christmas tree is a weird little tradition from Germany, that came over to England with Prince Albert, and became trendy. So it has no ties to Christ, at all. But the Palins put one up every year. Santa? A European tradition. But even O'Reilly will defend the idea (Though their are stories to the contrary, where he'll fight Claus.). And gift giving? Yet, everyone is up for some presents. Today most of us, Christians and non-Christian, like the secular side, the side that has grown and evolved. But it wasn't always so.

Back in the day, when the Puritans landed in America, they took Christmas serious. How serious? They banned it. That's how a serious Christians handles that. No drinking. No parties. No gifts. Nothing...Except church and prayer. Want to know what folk are actually supposed to call for, when they say they want to put the "Christ in Christmas"? That's what they are supposed to mean. On Christmas, you go to Church and pray. Otherwise you work, sleep, and pray.

But nobody wants that. It's part of the reason no one cared to have them in England in the first place (Their was also the whole civil war, killing the king. etc.). People want to have a party. And people, before and after Christians, will want to celebrate the end of the year and the midpoint of Winter. It is a happy holiday. And that's why, despite the complaints of commercialism and "add ons", most Conservative Christians take full advantage of the holiday season. But they aren't satisfied.

They just want you to treat them as the superior. Teach their religious views in school. Place their commandments in the courts and town squares. Write law by their vision of their holy book. And, fucking, say "Merry Christmas" to them, and smile while you're doing it. Okay? Thanks.

Now that that is finished. Let's get back to some proper religious celebration. It's almost St. Patrick's Day. Where's the green dye and the massive keg of beer?! Let's party like Christians! Woo!!!

What's still wrong with Kansas? Conservatives inflicting themselves on the rest of the state. Spoiler.

Kansas. I hate to pick on it. It has it's good qualities.


But it also sometimes makes itself home to some ridiculous politicians, like Governor Brownback. And conservatives like to view it as a testbed for many of their balmy ideas.

One gambit conservatives have been playing across the country has been the childhood classic/irritant "I'm Not Touching You". And the conservative's favorite playmate/victim of this is women and their access to abortion.

So many days of waiting before getting seen. But we aren't touching you! 

Denying access after 30 weeks. But we aren't touching! 

Denying access after 20 weeks. But we aren't touching! 

Denying access after 12 weeks. But we aren't touching! 

Mandatory transvaginal ultrasound probing But they aren't touching! 

...Wait...They're changing the rules. Cheaters!

While conservatives are kept by Roe vs Wade from banning abortion outright. They can throw up hurdles. They can also harass and work to demonize.

Now, they have a new bill working it's way through.

... 

A Kansas House committee passed HB 2253 on Wednesday along party lines, with Republicans pushing the bill through while Democrats opposed it. The bill is a broad spectrum of anti-abortion laws sponsored by GOP state Rep. Lance Kinzer, who is the poster boy for many of the outrageous abortion bills introduced and passed in Kansas these days. Included in the bill are measures declaring that life begins at conception, measures that keep women from deducting the cost of abortion procedures on their tax forms, and measures that affect “information the Kansas Department of Health and Environment distributes on abortion and fetal development,” according to the Topeka Capital-Journal. 

...

So they want to keep abortion support from getting the tax breaks all other health care gets, and women as well.

It has a further affect.

... 

Much of the debate centered on a portion of the bill that bars anyone associated with an abortion provider from working in a public school. It is meant to prevent districts from contracting with groups like Planned Parenthood to provide sexual education materials, but Rep. Emily Perry, D-Mission, said the bill as written was overly broad.  

"I read this section to prohibit parents from going in and volunteering at their child’s school if they work at a place that provides abortion services,” Perry said. 

Committee Chairman Arlen Siegfreid, R-Olathe, confirmed with a staff attorney that the bill would, for example, prohibit an abortion clinic secretary from "bringing cupcakes" to school for his or her child's birthday party. 

...

This is the after effect when you rush through law to get extreme results. The Republicans are so eager to bar Planned Parenthood and other honest sources of information and support. They want to isolate.

Though to be fair, Democrats complained, offered an amendment to prevent at least this result, and this led to some republicans agreement. Though it was tweaked by Republicans. It looks like it will allow abortion providers to volunteer at schools. But it also seems to say school workers cannot volunteer at abortion providers. We can't have that, can we, GOP?

And while some Republicans don't want to go the whole hog (leaving some hoof), others are eager to be extreme, laying out the basic trajectory that the party is following.

... 

There was still opposition to the amendment from Rep. Allan Rothlisberg, R-Grandview Plaza, who said he didn't want anyone involved in "killing children or babies" volunteering in public schools in any capacity. 

“If they want to (volunteer) they can find another job that will allow them to do so," Rothlisberg said. "We should have people of integrity and morality teaching our children.” 

...

Alienation. Ostracism. The favorite toys of the conservatism.

And the GOP of Kansas are now looking at the 12 week bans, and getting very excited. Oh, Kansas.

But that's not all Kansas Republicans are eyeing. They have some great ideas of education and taxes. You see, Republicans have eagerly been cutting the income tax down to nothing. But that means the budget is too big, and something needs to be cut! (How exciting for Republicans!) So, they are going after funds meant to help poorer families send their kids to state schools. Some are saying that they wonder if getting poorer kids and education is a job for government. Shifting from income taxes to sales taxes is important, but education, not so much. But it's not like the Republicans ever show contempt for education, academia, or educated voters.

When they needed a program to go after, it wasn't one that inconvenienced richer Kansas citizens or out-of-staters. They went to the poorest in the state, trying to better themselves. And, sadly, that is what the GOP does. Where do you cut to balance your budget? For Republicans, you slash into education, you slash into hospital funding, you slash into mental health support. And hasn't that benefited us all?

Let me remind Kansas of something. 2014. Over a year until you get your say about these politicians. And you better be sure you're heard at the polls.

And, to remind us all, not that long about the governor of the state was a Democrat. So it shouldn't be an insurmountable effort. Kansas can change it's politics.

Republicans pretending to support women. How cowardly is that? *UPDATED*

FINALLY. The Violence Against Women Act was allowed to be renewed and updated to further protect women in the United States. It took long enough!

Republicans and conservative interest groups worked hard to stymie renewal. After years of renewals, suddenly, the conservatives decided it was time to stop these protections. As with many topics, they decided this was a brilliant area to attack and disrupt government.

And, as they attempted to kill the act, they also tried to prevent further protections from being enacted, if the act survived. The House Republicans worked hard to prevent protections for LGBT from going forward, they fought against improved protection of women on tribal lands, and they didn't want immigrants to feel secure receiving help following assaults. They were clear on opposing these things.

But, the act finally did pass through Congress, and has now been signed by the president. ...FINALLY!

Yet, it doesn't stop there. Now many Republicans are heading home and pretending that they actually did support the VAWA. That takes so gall. And they don't deserve to be allowed to get away with it.

• Tim Griffin (AR)
• Vicky Hatzler (MO)
• Bill Johnson (OH)
• Steve King (IA)
• Tim Murphy (PA)
• Robert Pittenger (NC)
• Keith Rothfys (PA)
• Tim Walberg (MI)

Apparently the trick these Republicans are pulling is that they supported a conservative version of VAWA. The one that would not have helped many women, leaving them vulnerable. Then some are bragging about voting yes on the procedural vote to allow a vote on the final version of VAWA. But they are relying on journalist asking them any awkward questions, or noting the difference.

Don't let them off the hook.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Maddow Show points to another Republican that tries to pretend he's supportive, while voting against the act. John Cornyn. He supported a different bill, that ended up being incorporated into VAWA, which he opposed.

Jokes, cinema, and guys not getting stuff.

Well, it's been awhile since Oscar Night '13, and I could have just not said anything and not completed that old saying about the fool successfully confirming the standing hypothesis...but what's the point of being a fool then?

Yes. Comedy! I've been meaning to say something on it for awhile now. It is hard to talk about. So I've avoided and procrastinated writing. Still, it is worthwhile to discuss.

Comedy can be many things, and be legit. It can be tame. It can be kind. It can be kid friendly. It can be edgy. It can be dark. It can be cruel. It can be horrible. It can true. It can be lies. It can be uncomfortable.

And as I see controversy arise from comedic events, comic sets, and jokes not well received, I keep seeing comics exasperatedly shrug (Not all, but many comics.). The comics see upset people and get upset back. They don't care the least for people not being able to "take a joke". And I can sympathize some. They are in a profession where they put themselves out, rely on being allowed to try out ideas, and challenge convention. So when they see alum getting booed or jeered for what they say, they can get uncomfortable.

And I do feel unsure when people say, "You can't joke about..." Because, I don't think so. You can joke about pretty much anything. You can do it badly, fail at it, turn an audience against you, but it's done. Worse, you can go into nasty areas that will sell. And there are many profitable areas that comics rely on that are just garbage. The go into generic mocking of women, gays, people of other races and ethnicity, etc. There is a treasure trove of crap that many subpar comedians rely on. So many club are full of this crap, and it males audience laughs... It's garbage, but it sells. And that does make me sad. Because it is shit, that helps support and affirm the worst slurs and views of whole groups. It's weak humor. Anemic.

Decent comedians should be embarrassed protecting this crude. And, frankly, if you want to do comedy that causes offense, or is controversial...You don't get to complain when people take offense or it's seen as controversial.

As well, if you want to say things that are controversial, don't be shit at it. People like George Carlin and Louis C.K. have gone to those places, and shown that they've thought about it, have something to say, and then share ideas. If you are not going to be putting that effort in, you're just going to point and mock. You are just going to be an ass.

And speaking of asses, let's suddenly pivot to the Oscars. WOOOOOOO!!!

Oh, god. I couldn't watch the whole show (How many hours are required?), but, from the half I saw and the clips later, that was horrible.

So what did Seth MacFarlane go with?

• A song that broke down the careers of several respected actresses to their breast. (This included examples of rape scenes and one that comes from private photos being stolen and spread around.)
• The idea that women who come to these events may throw up and do other unhealthy things to "look good" is a joke to throw out.
• Using a 9 year old girl to make a weak joke about George Clooney's sex life. (And then he apologized...to Clooney.)
• Broke down the concept of Zero Dark Thirty to the story of a nagging woman.
• Breaking down Django Unchained to a Chris Brown/Rhianna joke.
• Saying women like Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz are around to look beautful. (Cause you can't understand them with their weird foreign accents. Don't worry, he also mocked Javier Bardem for his accent to.)
• Saying that Jennifer Aniston was once a stripper, mocking her and women who strip. And, just a random mean joke...

...But really they all were. It's the weak random crap we get in the Family Guys these days...Or maybe it's always been like this. But it was just shit.

Now, some have tried to say that this was all subversion. He just said nasty thing about women, and others, to make a point about...stuff. Yeah. He talks about women baring their bodies in movies, women vomiting to look thin, because he care. And then went on to judge all the women their based on their looks and sexual value to him and other men. Remember what I said above? Theirs smart and then theirs being an ass. He wasn't saying nasty things about groups because he has something to say about misogyny or racism, but because, with his main audience, it gets a laugh. He's a real Jeff Dunham.

But that was the point. The point of all of this was to make the Oscars a Guys Event. Why? ...I don't know. Why are they doing a Wizard of Oz movie about one of the nonheroes of the books? Cause guys are more important than women...As MacFarlane tried to explain with his hosting duties.

And as we all know, media and society is so unfair and leveled against us guys. Am I right?

How does working in the US rate?: What the graphs and maps are saying.

It is interesting to look at just how the United States rates against other countries, when it comes to how business is run and affected by government. Their are many regulatory issues.

But a useful one to consider is how workers are treated.

So consider how much paid leave you are required to receive.

Notice how we compare to the competition? We don't mandate time off. You may get it at your work, but you may also be denied any time off with pay, or have it suddenly revoked. Much of the rest of the world, who we are seriously competing with find it important to address. But we don't. And China. (Though this Wikipedia page suggests that China does have some level of mandatory paid leave.)

Add to this, how maternity leave handled.

So, again, US has no mandatory leave for childbirth. Which is why we do often see parents racing to get back into the workflow post-birth. And, again, we see our main competitors are giving weeks to half a year of paid leave. It makes the US look like it's trying to push new mothers out of the workforce.

But at least we get good pay from top to bottom, right? We make sure people, if they may not get any leave,   can actually afford to live, right?

In many of our large population centers, a person at minimum wage cannot work 6 AM - 5 PM Monday to Sunday and pay rent. But look at the bright side  you'll be working so hard to keep a home, you won't have time to vacation, or use vacation as a verb.

American workers deserve better.

But, sadly, many of us don't even know.

We easily fail to realize how out of sync the country is on matters of wealth. The top echelons of the country hold most of our wealth. And the next group down holds far far little, but still a nice chunk of the wealth. And that leaves the middle class and those below fighting for the crumbs left at the end of the table. And we often don't see how amazingly unequal it is. And when some of us do see how the scales are tipped out of our reach, we are reassured. Don't worry. It's for the best. The rich will invest in us or us.

But, no.

• 1% of entrepreneurs are from the richest of us. Most of that cash sits in accounts, safe and accruing interest.
• The equivalent of half of the US's GDP is held overseas and untaxed. That's up to $12 trillion hidden overseas.
• Since the recession started, corporations have been avoiding paying around $250 billion every year in taxes.
• Around a trillion dollars is lost to revenue in tax deductions for the richest.
• $4 trillion was given to bail out the banks.
• Securities trading goes untaxed. In the US, there is 100's of trillions of dollars of it.
• Those in poverty on food stamps, including the elderly and disabled, receive around $4.30 a day in support.

The rich take money, tuck it away, seek ways to avoiding paying out, and ask for gifts. How else do you get and stay stinking rich? Money doesn't come to these people by big investments in the country. When the rich have done this, it has been a major pay out. Carnegie, Gates, Rowling. These people are forgoing chunks of their wealth to make the world around them better.

Same happens with business efforts. Business leaders have to give up some profits to benefit and motivate workers, to help the community, to protect the environment. Now, there are times that these investment can lead to financial profit, but often it doesn't. For example, Walmart may not see profits soar just as high as they do now, if it gives workers health care and a living wage. But the benefits to the community at large, and the harm being done should not be ignored. But business minds often have trouble seeing passed their piles of gold.

That's why we need to mandate things like paid leave, and minimum wage.

Chavez passes.

I have been following Hugo Chavez’s, president of Venezuela, for some time now. He’s been struggling with cancer for some time, and spending a lot of time in Cuba seeking treatment. Now it’s been confirmed he’s died in Cuba, after having been out of sight for some time.

Online, and on cable news, I've seen a lot of excited talk at his death, giddiness to see him gone. Others are quite upset to see him gone. Me? I’m ambivalent.

I first really noticed Chavez way back during an attempted coupe to remove him. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't being covered for awhile on US news, so I had to rely on Univision for news. As they actually had reporters in the country, while the US services had no one remotely close. And I remember the talk afterward about whether the US and Bush had anything to do with the attempt to remove him. I've never seen any evidence to prove that.

But since then he’s become more known for being a pain in the side of the Bush administration. During his second term he cemented the friendship with Cuba. He made deals and offered oil at times to aggravate the White House. He was friendly with nations that the US was in diplomatic fights with. And he would make speeches to meant to mock and piss off the US (Remember the, “I smell the devil speech”?).

And if you had your troubles and dislike of GW Bush and the policies of his administration, you may have enjoyed his cajoling some. I may have, or I at least didn't seem overwhelmed by his jeers.

Still, I have never been a fan of the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if we are talking about “‘enemies’”, “frenemies”, or the current party in power with who I disagree. Remember how hostile Alex Jones was to the White House during Bush? A lot of liberals enjoyed listening to his wild conspiracies then. And Chavez has told some amazing stories himself.

But important is what he brought to the country. Going back to the coup against him. he’s been facing off with business interests. This includes oil execs. And with the history in Central and South America of multinational business pushing governments around, or having the US do it, it’s hard to not like seeing them not get their way. Though it seems, here in the US, some are salivating now at the chance to get back in.

Now, Chavez’s legacy will stand on more than this. And it’s important to get past the conservative pap. Past the ties to Cuba being damning, or the fact he played at being the great socialist, or talking back to America.

So, if you want to consider some of the issues that have arose in Chavez’s time in power, that maybe we should hope will change with the Vice President coming power. try Think Progress’s piece.

It is worth noting how he treated some groups in Venezuela, how he used the media, how the poor fared, how long since international monitors were allowed to watch elections,  and how much power he consolidated in the executive.

And a more positive view.

Michigan, Inc. - Selling it for parts.

Gov Snyder, the creepy executive of Michigan is continuing his privatization of his state. Across the state he has been placing cities under the control of Emergency Managers. This ends the democratic control and authority of citizens.

Now he has set his sights on controlling Detroit.

Why does the GOP want to make Robocop 3 a reality?!

Snyder is declaring another financial emergency, and in comes the Emergency Manager. And out goes the power of the mayor and city council. No one can act as the manager sells off property, functions, and materials. So look forward to the auctions. Also the manager can void contracts, so we can expect layoffs. So services are going away or worsening, all things that should do a bang up job of improving the state's condition  At this point the state is approaching having half of all blacks in the state denied any voice in government.

And if you actually have a doubt about how little the GOP cares for the opinion and desires of voters, just look to last year. The people of Michigan voted to end the Emergency Managers law. Then, in December, Snyder signed a new Emergency Manager law, bypassing the people of Michigan. Screw the people. More to the point, Snyder is telling Michigan it...Well, actually, he's the one screwing Michigan. And Snyder has been wringing his hands about this Detroit decision. But as he's been putting in Emergency Managers around the state, and reappointing them, he's had his eye on Detroit, waiting for the time to declare an emergency.

Michigan is having troubles. But what Snyder and the GOP want and are doing is killing the state, denying the people their voices, and helping their benefactors profit greatly from it all.

The GOP plan for America is written across Michigan today. A better America? Who needs that? The money is in selling it for parts. 

Hey ladies? You weren't going to use your rights, right? ^UPDATED 2*

Been wanting to get to this for awhile now. So, as we are in the 40th anniversary year of Roe Vs. Wade, let's see how the rights of women stand.

You may not like the state of reproductive rights.

In three states, access to abortion are all but gone. In North Dakota, South Dakota, and Mississippi, there are solitary facilities for women to, in any way, have an abortion procedure done. Per Roe vs. Wade, it isn't being banned. But conservatives are working on many ways to limit women. Through business pressure, social pressure, threats, and government. In Mississippi, the rules placed on any facility have grown more and more onerous. They've moved from demanding they own extraneous machinery to having closets of a certain size to demanding doctors have privileges at a nearby hospital. And that is the magic one. Because any hospital that doesn't want to be made to suffer is not going to give those privileges  We can only hope the court agrees that these laws are all bullshit.

Arkansas has just made it law that a pregnancy that reaches 20 weeks cannot (barring fine print exceptions) be terminated. The state senate overrode a veto to do this. And this follows on a number of states that have also passed bills into law to also ban abortions at 20 weeks. But it isn't stopping there. The now are working on a Heartbeat Bill. This will push the ban on abortion to the 12 week mark.

North Dakota is working on a bill that will give fertilized eggs legal rights. And as such, you can go after women seeking to abort them. More than this, it means, along with abortion, many forms of birth control and infertility treatment will also become illegal. These conservatives keep trying to pass bills that are loaded down with so many side effects. It is sickening.

Iowa Republicans are thinking a lot like North Dakota and pushing the idea now of redefining murder in the state. It would now include knowingly killing a fertilized egg. What is impressive here is that it is about charging murder. That means women will go to prison.

Indiana is looking at the transvaginal probe idea again. But they don't want to be banal about it. So, they want to force women to be transvaginally probed TWICE. Why? They don't like women. Also, it is worth reminding ourselves that 12 states currently go force women to have mandatory ultrasounds. This problem has not gone away.


South Dakota is placing mandatory new waiting periods on women seeking an abortion. Now they already require 3 days of waiting, along with being ministered to by anti-abortion advocates. But a new law will be declare weekends and any holidays WILL NOT count. So If you begin on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday do not count, and you have to wait over Monday and Tuesday as well. With only one facility in the state, and with it being on the edge of the state. This means a lot of travelling and hotel expenses for women (Not to mention missing work.). But more than that, why doesn't a Saturday or Sunday count as waiting? What's different? It's like having women face a second transvaginal probing. It's meant to trouble and stress women. It's about making women pay for daring to not follow the dictates of conservatives.

And, quite sadly, their is so much more being done to deny women their rights.

Not good news at all. Conservatives across the country are trying to find ways to bypass Roe Vs. Wade. In places like South Dakota, bans on abortion continually fail when put to a vote. So states just try and harass and torment to get what...a conservative zealous minority want. And that is not considering the segment of the US Supreme Court who are eager to tear down 40 year old decision.

This fight keeps going on. They keep pushing us back.

So, just as a reminder, 2014 is coming. Be sure to vote. It matters. And this year, be sure your state legislators and governors are reminded you have a vote and voice, and they don't get to stay in office forever. Get pissed off and get active.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Hey! Remember how I said Arkansas was looking to bar women from seeking an abortion after 12 weeks? They passed the idea into law. If women don't act fast enough, and leap across every other hurdle the conservatives place to keep women from using their rights, you will be denied.

Welcome to the GOP vision of the future. Discovery of the pregnancy, decision to made, waiting periods, repeated counseling sessions, repeated doctor visits, and limited numbers of doctors available, all to be dealt with in 12 weeks from conception. If only they could force women to train for and run a marathon before they can visit a doctor.

Look forward to this being pushed into law in more states before long.


We can hope Gov. Beebe will veto this law, as he did the 20 week ban. But, as with that, the state senate looks ready to overturn the veto. Still, I hope he stands bu the fact this law is bad for the state, and will drag the state into a losing lawsuit.

_______________
ADDENDUM 2:

What has looked this year like a dash, among conservatives, to bar access to abortion services has turned into an outright speed race. It is only growing more disconcerting. Conservatives have encroached more and more on the rights on women. And following electoral losses, they are charging harder.

So, now, in North Dakota, following their previously mentioned efforts, they are now banning abortions after 6 WEEKS. No typo there. So, if their fetal rights law doesn't work, they are hoping to just make it impossible for women to have the time to get help.

So now women will have to learn they are pregnant, then travel to the ONE clinic in the whole state, which will depend on if they can get the time off work, etc. THEN they will be required to wait one day. So, if it takes you a month to realize a pregnancy, that's 4 of 6 weeks gone. With the time left you have to make your decision and then travel and wait.

It's just unbelievable. No, it isn't, is it?

We know, so many red states are howling at this bill now, conservatives bitterly jealous that they hadn't thought to push this far. So, soon, they will join. Or, they will be trying to ban abortion after 3 weeks, or 1 weeks, or 1 day.

It is what they want. They want a woman going to a hospital the morning after conception to be too late to get assistance. These are constraints that conservatives long have dreamed of placing on women, once again.

They salivate at the idea it could be true again. In so many ways conservatism wishes it was the 1950's.

16-bit Doctor

16-bit Doctor Who, as if a game from the old Nintendo Entertainment System.

This hilarious and too true video never gets old, it gets more nostalgic.



If only someone would do a SNES version for the new season of Doctor Who.

Republicans have turned the old Political Dance into a game of Keep Away

David Brooks, did another of his dull columns, lamenting the dance that president and the Republicans in Congress are in the midst of. Oh, he's not completely wrong. There is regularly some dance going on between the parties in Washington, when they have to share power. A rumba. A twist. A bit of the forbidden (on the the GOP convention floor) dance.

But, as always, Brooks ignores what is happening for what he likes the sound of. Where Brooks sees a dance floor and dance, there's actually playground. And the GOP is disrupting a cracking good game of kickball, so they can play Keep Away. And they've decided that the president is "it".

So now, as we gently slide into sequestration like one slides into a warm bath, let's look back at the folks some complain the president just isn't properly negotiating and compromising with.

But first, a little music. Something to hum as we think of the GOP. "Whatever it is, I'm against it."



"Whatever it is, they're against it!" - Yes. My play on the song.

But, as conservatives and timid news folk will claim, "They aren't opposed to things just cause Obama is for them!"

Newt Gingrich:

“An Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House.”

What is it that the president does to "goad" the GOP? You know, he talks. He offers an idea. He acts like he's president. You know, the usual insufferable things. Sadly, Gingrich voiced what the GOP was trying not to out and out does. They won't work with the president. They've spent four years trying to block as much as they can, stonewall negotiations, and then they seek to brag to supporters about it. Repeatedly bills have passed through Congress, and the president mentions he approves of it...and it's dead in the water. They've polled the GOP to see this effect. What they've found is when they support certain ideas and bills, when they are told the president also supports them, most of them will oppose the idea. Just that simple.

The Hagel nomination. Their is a certain way the cabinet gets picked. The president offers up a candidate and the Senate confirms. It usually goes like this. Not always though. Sometimes their is a serious issue with the choice. A flaw. An issue of suitability  And in those cases the nomination faces challenges. Many times this leads to reevaluating the candidate. And that's how the system should work. But with Hagel, like with Susan Rice earlier, the walls went up instantly in the Senate Republican ranks. They were determined to bar confirmation. They went so far as to eagerly believe in a made up group called Friends of Hamas, as it gave reason to call Hagel a threat. But this and the claims of being anti-Semitic or having a deep secret waiting to emerge just were not cutting it. But, by god, the Republicans tried to make it work.

And it doesn't end there. So many positions across the executive branch sit vacant still. Many judicial posts are not getting filled, Congress refusing to act on the offered candidates. You'd think that the GOP was hostile to government.

The past three years of budget talks! I previously linked to a piece on how the GOP leaders have talked down efforts to cut spending. As the president has made cuts, or agreed to cuts, the Republicans continually turns around looks into a camera and cry out, "The president won't cut spending!" It is just amazing. More than the way they never have something new say, or bring to the bargaining table, this fact makes them an actual broken record. The same speeches keeps coming out of their mouths.

Whether the president makes cuts or not, Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell will go on TV and say the president just wants to balloon the budget. It doesn't matter. They seem incapable of being serious.

It's like their some comedic troops...Like they're the...

NO!

I am NOT going there. The Marx Brothers are awesome. Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell suck.

Instead let's just leave with some final words from the great Will Rogers.




But why leave it at that? A bit more insight from nearly one hundred years back.

Boehner: Declare victory, Fist pump, Go out for celebratory drinks. *UPDATED*

A lot of conservatives have tried to come out and declare that this sequestration business is all President Obama's fault.

"It was his idea!"

And that sounds like a great point! Except, regardless of who came up with the idea first or proposed it as a compromise, it went to Congress, and was passed by Congress. And, here's the big twist, John Boehner is in Congress and actually in charge of one of the chambers. And if that isn't enough, watch this:



Boehner bragged, when sequestration was made law, that he'd gotten virtually EVERYTHING he wanted. He seemed to be on board with sequestration. And to be fair, so was the president. But Boehner was eager to crow about getting his 98%.

Now the GOP seems to want to pretend that they somehow have NOTHING to do with it. It was all just slipped by them, like the birth certificate.

Sequestration was a stupid way to get around a stupid problem. Conservatives wanted to fight on the debt, on the budget, on anything and everything, and just derail the government, in the hopes it would get them the White House, and both chambers of Congress. We finally got to the point that things were getting serious for the financial stability of the nation, and everyone needed to actually govern. Conservatives had backed themselves into a corner they couldn't get out off without looking like the idiots they are. So, we ended up with sequestration, so everyone could like next time we would all be adults about the financing and running of the country.

Unsurprisingly, the GOP still refuses to grow up, or come in from playing to clean up before lunch. No talk on revenue or taxes is possible. Only cuts. But not the sequestration cuts!!! Those are BAD cuts. We have to cut the right things. What? ...Obamacare?

If you want to take something useful as a tool from this business, consider all the talk and stories on the work that can't or won't be done by workers and businesses across the country. Look at the talk of all the teachers, DoD workers or affiliated businesses, food inspectors, etc. So does government spending have an impact on employment and the economic vitality of the country? Or doesn't it?

We know cutting spending now is dangerous. Particularly with the troubles are economy is having know. Sequestration is something that should not be allowed to continue. It's haphazard. It's too steep. It's more or less what the GOP always says it wants to do to our budget and government.

The GOP wants to continue on, it is what they run on, it's what they always say they would do, what they say has to happen. Slash! Cut and burn.

After all, is it liberals or conservatives that are obsessed with cutting the budget? Or does the GOP, maybe, see value in the government spending money in

But, guys and gals? We will need some money in the coffers to invest in the country. And we all know who's currently hoarding most of it.

_____________
ADDENDUM:

Also thought I should mention that in the argument over cuts and taxes, let's remember some things.

First, their was a "tax increase" earlier this year. It was a pain in the ass fight to do, but we did end a tax holiday for a small group of the rich. At the same time we made the tax holiday for the rest a actual tax cut. So we did raise to normal some peoples taxes, and gave others a tax cut.

If you listen to Boehner, that is all that's happen. No. The president has been making cuts to spending the last 4 years, again, despite claims he's led the most expansive growth of government (EVER IN THE HISTORY OF HISTORY!!!). No. There is growth in areas. But it's also been pruned. Just in the last two years we've cut well over a billion dollars in the deals made (Think Progress has a nice short video showing what's been happening.). No the GOP wants to keep pretending cuts have been avoided.

Not to mention, again, that the necessary and fair levels of revenue/taxes are being brought in.