The election of Donald Trump and Republican behavior during Roy Moore's Senate race proved, beyond any doubt, that the Republican claim to be the party of morality is utterly empty.
The passage of the Republican tax heist and the attendant spectacle of Republican lawmakers' teabagging the *President's balls have shown that the concept of public service has left the Republican Party completely. What the Republican Party is about today is simply the gaining and retention of power.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Sunday, December 17, 2017
Are any of the Trump voters awake out there?
Some Trump voters are still sticking their fingers in their ears and saying, "La la la la, I can't hear you!" when confronted with the miseries his administration has caused in his first year. They still claim that Trump has "fulfilled all of his campaign promises," but I'll bet that some of you have started to suspect that you have been screwed. It's dawned on you that Trump made many promises to "the little guy," but that nothing has as yet materialized.
In his inauguration speech, Trump vowed,
Trump seemed to be on your side, but he apparently is not. How did he fool you?
He built upon a campaign of propaganda that the Republican Party has been pushing for a long, long time. He knew you felt cheated, and he played on your fears, placing blame where it didn't belong.
First, Trump and the Republicans have convinced you over the years that government is a machine that takes away your money and gives it to brown people. I know that you probably don't accept the label of racist, but you suspect that you have been cheated, and the Republicans have pointed to convenient scapegoats: immigrants and people of color. They have told you that your money has gone to give them disproportionate benefits. But if you think you've been cheated, I guarantee that your suffering has not benefited these groups. You don't have much? They don't have much. Your suffering is not their fault.
Who is taking your money then? Look at the Republican tax bill. It is written by rich people, for rich people. Republican legislators are so beholden to people like the Koch brothers that they have forsaken the very people in their own districts. Republican policies today are outright hostile to the people who voted for them.
Still believe in trickle-down economics? That giving more tax breaks to corporations and their owners will make them pay workers more, and hire more people? Even many of these captains of industry have admitted that they will just be putting that money away for themselves, and sharing some with their shareholders. The only thing that causes factory expansion and more hiring is more demand. If the little guy is not getting a job at a fair wage, he's got no money to buy things. Yet, the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail against a higher minimum wage. They are making you pay more for medical care, and then taking away your medical tax deductions on top of that!
Trickle-down economics should be renamed "evaporate-up."
Second, Republicans have preached that the free market is sacred, ordained by God, and should be touched by human hands as little as possible--that any regulations to it are detrimental. In reality, the market is a human invention, and humans make mistakes. Some humans are exceedingly greedy. Some humans have power and advantages you don't have. If you try to get them to treat you fairly, they have the power to crush you. Laws and regulations have got to be in place to protect you. Maybe you think that Democrats just like to regulate things for no reason. But there's always a reason. Somebody is getting hurt. Somebody is being cheated. Regulations are there to prevent or remedy these hurts.
Third, Republicans, in a very clever effort to distract attention from themselves, have invented the idea of "liberal elites." Now, let's consider just who are the true elites. The true elites are people with many times more money than you or I have. These are people who look at the little guy and see an employee or a servant. That's what you are to them. You're either working for them or waiting on them.
And who are these liberal elitists they talk about? The liberal elite is a class of people who are educated and who know what the Republican game is, and have the conscience to try to do something about it. They are people who understand how government and the economy work, and who really do try to look out for you. For us.
In his inauguration speech, Trump vowed,
[T]oday we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.Then he proceeded to staff his cabinet with Wall Street fat cats. And now, the Republican House of Representatives and Senate are forcing through a tax bill that redistributes wealth upward, from the little guy to the already super wealthy.
Trump seemed to be on your side, but he apparently is not. How did he fool you?
He built upon a campaign of propaganda that the Republican Party has been pushing for a long, long time. He knew you felt cheated, and he played on your fears, placing blame where it didn't belong.
First, Trump and the Republicans have convinced you over the years that government is a machine that takes away your money and gives it to brown people. I know that you probably don't accept the label of racist, but you suspect that you have been cheated, and the Republicans have pointed to convenient scapegoats: immigrants and people of color. They have told you that your money has gone to give them disproportionate benefits. But if you think you've been cheated, I guarantee that your suffering has not benefited these groups. You don't have much? They don't have much. Your suffering is not their fault.
Who is taking your money then? Look at the Republican tax bill. It is written by rich people, for rich people. Republican legislators are so beholden to people like the Koch brothers that they have forsaken the very people in their own districts. Republican policies today are outright hostile to the people who voted for them.
Still believe in trickle-down economics? That giving more tax breaks to corporations and their owners will make them pay workers more, and hire more people? Even many of these captains of industry have admitted that they will just be putting that money away for themselves, and sharing some with their shareholders. The only thing that causes factory expansion and more hiring is more demand. If the little guy is not getting a job at a fair wage, he's got no money to buy things. Yet, the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail against a higher minimum wage. They are making you pay more for medical care, and then taking away your medical tax deductions on top of that!
Trickle-down economics should be renamed "evaporate-up."
Second, Republicans have preached that the free market is sacred, ordained by God, and should be touched by human hands as little as possible--that any regulations to it are detrimental. In reality, the market is a human invention, and humans make mistakes. Some humans are exceedingly greedy. Some humans have power and advantages you don't have. If you try to get them to treat you fairly, they have the power to crush you. Laws and regulations have got to be in place to protect you. Maybe you think that Democrats just like to regulate things for no reason. But there's always a reason. Somebody is getting hurt. Somebody is being cheated. Regulations are there to prevent or remedy these hurts.
Third, Republicans, in a very clever effort to distract attention from themselves, have invented the idea of "liberal elites." Now, let's consider just who are the true elites. The true elites are people with many times more money than you or I have. These are people who look at the little guy and see an employee or a servant. That's what you are to them. You're either working for them or waiting on them.
And who are these liberal elitists they talk about? The liberal elite is a class of people who are educated and who know what the Republican game is, and have the conscience to try to do something about it. They are people who understand how government and the economy work, and who really do try to look out for you. For us.
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Sex and (political) parties
Sex is a tricky thing. The possibility of having sex may cloud the mind and cause people to make bad decisions.
Rich and powerful men who want lots of women have plenty of opportunities, since money and power are attractive to some women. One would think that would be plenty for these men, but some of them are power abusers who use that power to extort women to have sex with them.
When Harvey Weinstein was finally brought down for such behavior, the floodgates were open, and many powerful men now have reason to be afraid of revelations of their misdeeds.
How the accused men handle these revelations varies. Politics has long been a major venue for sexual harassment, and several politicians have lately been found out. How they and their supporters react says a lot about them.
Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, Democrats, have both chosen to resign, and, although many Franken supporters have asserted that he should not resign, for the most part reactions among Democrats have been honorable.
Deposed judge Roy Moore of Alabama is a candidate for the United States Senate. He has several accusers who claim that he pursued them for relationships when they were juveniles, one of them when she was fourteen. Moore's proclivities apparently were known in his town and got him banned from a shopping mall he cruised.
Of course, the elephant in the sexual abuse room is our own *President, Donald J. Trump. Little needs to be said; he brags, and everybody knows.
In those last two cases, the named politicians are Republicans. Are fellow Republicans ashamed of them? Perhaps, but not enough to call for them to leave public office. Roy Moore's Alabama colleagues value the power of his potential Senate vote over the morality they promote incessantly; they would actually prefer to send a pedophile to Washington, rather than a Democrat. The party of family values talks the talk, but chooses political expediency over making the right moral choices time and again.
And then there is the ultimate hypocrite, Senator Mitch McConnell, who calls on Al Franken to resign, while protecting Roy Moore.
The Democratic sense of fair play may seem a poor strategy in the face of the Republican party's amoral version of hardball. Our politicians misbehave, then resign. Their politicians misbehave, then carry on to win elections.
I hope that the Democratic sense of right and wrong (which the Republican Party can no longer plausibly claim to possess) proves to be good for the party in the long run.
Rich and powerful men who want lots of women have plenty of opportunities, since money and power are attractive to some women. One would think that would be plenty for these men, but some of them are power abusers who use that power to extort women to have sex with them.
When Harvey Weinstein was finally brought down for such behavior, the floodgates were open, and many powerful men now have reason to be afraid of revelations of their misdeeds.
How the accused men handle these revelations varies. Politics has long been a major venue for sexual harassment, and several politicians have lately been found out. How they and their supporters react says a lot about them.
Congressman John Conyers and Senator Al Franken, Democrats, have both chosen to resign, and, although many Franken supporters have asserted that he should not resign, for the most part reactions among Democrats have been honorable.
Deposed judge Roy Moore of Alabama is a candidate for the United States Senate. He has several accusers who claim that he pursued them for relationships when they were juveniles, one of them when she was fourteen. Moore's proclivities apparently were known in his town and got him banned from a shopping mall he cruised.
Of course, the elephant in the sexual abuse room is our own *President, Donald J. Trump. Little needs to be said; he brags, and everybody knows.
In those last two cases, the named politicians are Republicans. Are fellow Republicans ashamed of them? Perhaps, but not enough to call for them to leave public office. Roy Moore's Alabama colleagues value the power of his potential Senate vote over the morality they promote incessantly; they would actually prefer to send a pedophile to Washington, rather than a Democrat. The party of family values talks the talk, but chooses political expediency over making the right moral choices time and again.
And then there is the ultimate hypocrite, Senator Mitch McConnell, who calls on Al Franken to resign, while protecting Roy Moore.
The Democratic sense of fair play may seem a poor strategy in the face of the Republican party's amoral version of hardball. Our politicians misbehave, then resign. Their politicians misbehave, then carry on to win elections.
I hope that the Democratic sense of right and wrong (which the Republican Party can no longer plausibly claim to possess) proves to be good for the party in the long run.
Monday, November 6, 2017
A short note to my fellow lefties
I would dearly love to pull the US as far to the left as possible. But I'm not a fool.
Please consider the following.
Our so-called president is a Republican.
The Senate is controlled by the Republican Party.
The House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is unable to enact any significant legislation.
The Republican Party is at war with itself. There is a sizable contingent of Republicans who are ideologically pure and doctrinaire. If a bill is presented to them that gives them 90% of what they want, they will vote against it. They say that they must pass only those bills that completely fulfill their campaign promises. Compromise is out of the question. As a result, they have achieved none of what they promised.
They have traded 90% for 0%.
It's a bad model.
Now, nobody who knows me would ever accuse me of being a neoliberal. But if my purely progressive object of legislative desire does not have the votes, I will vote with my fellow Democrats for the best bill that can be passed. I will not sit and hold my breath until I turn blue. What good does it do anybody if I do that and we achieve nothing?
My fellow lefties, we mustn't model our behavior on the unsuccessful example of the Freedom Caucus. People are suffering, and we need to do whatever is possible to alleviate that suffering. Don't forget the mission.
Please consider the following.
Our so-called president is a Republican.
The Senate is controlled by the Republican Party.
The House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is unable to enact any significant legislation.
The Republican Party is at war with itself. There is a sizable contingent of Republicans who are ideologically pure and doctrinaire. If a bill is presented to them that gives them 90% of what they want, they will vote against it. They say that they must pass only those bills that completely fulfill their campaign promises. Compromise is out of the question. As a result, they have achieved none of what they promised.
They have traded 90% for 0%.
It's a bad model.
Now, nobody who knows me would ever accuse me of being a neoliberal. But if my purely progressive object of legislative desire does not have the votes, I will vote with my fellow Democrats for the best bill that can be passed. I will not sit and hold my breath until I turn blue. What good does it do anybody if I do that and we achieve nothing?
My fellow lefties, we mustn't model our behavior on the unsuccessful example of the Freedom Caucus. People are suffering, and we need to do whatever is possible to alleviate that suffering. Don't forget the mission.
Monday, September 25, 2017
Postcards to the White House
A few months back, there was a loosely organized effort to inundate the Trump White House with postcards on a single day. I sent in a half dozen of them myself, but I never heard whether the flood of postcards caused the hoped for consternation. But every now and then, when I have some complaint, I send an impolite postcard.
I don't know whether any of the postcards are read, or if that huge outpouring of complaint got sent directly to the shredder. I like to think that some disillusioned staffer (and there surely are many) got some entertainment from our efforts. Perhaps someone is saving them as part of some paperwork retention act, or maybe somebody just picked his or her favorites and stuck them up in her cubicle. My true, and probably vain, hope is that some of them wind up in a future Museum of American Fascism.
Sometimes I think that I should have scanned mine, because I have no recollection of the messages that I have sent thus far, except for the one I mailed this morning.
I don't know whether any of the postcards are read, or if that huge outpouring of complaint got sent directly to the shredder. I like to think that some disillusioned staffer (and there surely are many) got some entertainment from our efforts. Perhaps someone is saving them as part of some paperwork retention act, or maybe somebody just picked his or her favorites and stuck them up in her cubicle. My true, and probably vain, hope is that some of them wind up in a future Museum of American Fascism.
Sometimes I think that I should have scanned mine, because I have no recollection of the messages that I have sent thus far, except for the one I mailed this morning.
Hey, dick, what about PUERTO RICO?? -- MontyOur president's* dereliction of his duties is virtually complete.
Monday, August 7, 2017
What is God for, exactly?
The world is a beautiful, bountiful place, but it is full of dangers. Many of the dangers are things we have no control over, although in the modern world we have achieved limited control over some things that were uncontrollable in past eras.
Humans have often been at the mercy of random events: earthquakes, storms, accidents, disease, attacks by wild animals, long droughts and famine. Humans are able to look for causes of these events, and to try to take control over them when they can. Modern medicine, for example, has spared most parents from having to suffer the early deaths of their children.
Another result of human questioning and striving for control has been the idea that there is some intelligence in the universe that causes these things to happen. This being is responsible for the bounty and the beauty (Praise God from whom all blessings flow...), but also, humans hope, can be called upon to keep us safe from disasters. Unfortunately, this being is highly unreliable and seems to be capricious. (Note that God's capricious nature echoes the conditions of the natural world. While nature cannot be petitioned, God, we hope, can.)
Prayer is the attempt to gain some kind of control over our fates. When we pray, however, our unreliable deity ignores us most of the time. That is, prayer is most often perceived to be ineffective in getting the desired results. Now and then, however, the believer prays for something, and it comes true. The positive result strengthens belief. What does the believer do in the majority of cases when prayer achieves no results at all? Unfortunately, the believer makes excuses for God, and often blames himself. My faith is not great enough. Perhaps I am being punished for a sin. Finally, when the believer runs out of reasons to blame himself, he is forced to utter the foremost sentence for letting God off the hook: Thy will be done.
The human looking for answers and control would do well to realize that prayers are ineffective because there is nothing to pray to. Those times when prayer seems to work out are really just the times when the thing wished for just happened naturally. Diseases, for example, sometimes go away by themselves, and nowadays are often cured by doctors.
When we don't waste our time trying to mollify our capricious God through self-blame and trying to change the sinful nature of ourselves and others, we have more time to do, under our own power, things to improve our chances for longer, happier lives.
A side benefit to discarding the belief that our sinful nature is the cause of our problems is that our leaders can no longer use disasters to control our behavior. When we know that hurricanes are not punishing us because some person or persons are sinning, we are free from the despot's manipulations.
Humans have often been at the mercy of random events: earthquakes, storms, accidents, disease, attacks by wild animals, long droughts and famine. Humans are able to look for causes of these events, and to try to take control over them when they can. Modern medicine, for example, has spared most parents from having to suffer the early deaths of their children.
Another result of human questioning and striving for control has been the idea that there is some intelligence in the universe that causes these things to happen. This being is responsible for the bounty and the beauty (Praise God from whom all blessings flow...), but also, humans hope, can be called upon to keep us safe from disasters. Unfortunately, this being is highly unreliable and seems to be capricious. (Note that God's capricious nature echoes the conditions of the natural world. While nature cannot be petitioned, God, we hope, can.)
Prayer is the attempt to gain some kind of control over our fates. When we pray, however, our unreliable deity ignores us most of the time. That is, prayer is most often perceived to be ineffective in getting the desired results. Now and then, however, the believer prays for something, and it comes true. The positive result strengthens belief. What does the believer do in the majority of cases when prayer achieves no results at all? Unfortunately, the believer makes excuses for God, and often blames himself. My faith is not great enough. Perhaps I am being punished for a sin. Finally, when the believer runs out of reasons to blame himself, he is forced to utter the foremost sentence for letting God off the hook: Thy will be done.
The human looking for answers and control would do well to realize that prayers are ineffective because there is nothing to pray to. Those times when prayer seems to work out are really just the times when the thing wished for just happened naturally. Diseases, for example, sometimes go away by themselves, and nowadays are often cured by doctors.
When we don't waste our time trying to mollify our capricious God through self-blame and trying to change the sinful nature of ourselves and others, we have more time to do, under our own power, things to improve our chances for longer, happier lives.
A side benefit to discarding the belief that our sinful nature is the cause of our problems is that our leaders can no longer use disasters to control our behavior. When we know that hurricanes are not punishing us because some person or persons are sinning, we are free from the despot's manipulations.
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
Senate Hall of Shame
The Hall of Shame is now complete.
The murderers of the upper house:
The murderers of the upper house:
Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Roy Blunt (R-MO)
John Boozman (R-AR)
Richard M. Burr (R-NC)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Michael D. Crapo (R-ID)
Ted Cruz (R-TX)
Steve Daines (R-MT)
Michael B. Enzi (R-WY)
Joni Ernst (R-IA)
Deb Fischer (R-NE)
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Cory Gardner (R-CO)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Charles E. Grassley (R-IA)
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT)
Dean Heller (R-NV)
John Hoeven (R-ND)
James M. Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
John Kennedy (R-LA)
James Lankford (R-OK)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Mike Pence
David Perdue (R-GA)
Rob Portman (R-OH)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Michael Rounds (R-SD)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Ben Sasse (R-NE)
Tim Scott (R-SC)
Richard C. Shelby (R-AL)
Luther Strange (R-AL)
Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
John Thune (R-SD)
Thom Tillis (R-NC)
Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)
Todd Young (R-IN)
Thursday, July 20, 2017
House of Representatives Hall of Shame
When the Senate couldn't come up with the votes to advance Trumpcare, the Republicans of the House of Representatives were miffed that they had had to cast their murderous votes for all to see, and all for nothing!
From Talking Points Memo:
From Talking Points Memo:
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) barely won reelection last fall in a district Trump lost by 8 points, and is a top Democratic target heading into 2018. He nevertheless voted for the bill after remaining silent on his position up until the vote itself. And he’s not pleased that Republican senators weren’t able to get their acts together.Just for the record, here is the list of Representatives who voted to repeal and replace Obamacare with something far worse.
Don Young (R-AK)
Bradley Byrne (R-AL)
Martha Roby (R-AL)
Mike D. Rogers (R-AL)
Robert B. Aderholt (R-AL)
Mo Brooks (R-AL)
Gary Palmer (R-AL)
Rick Crawford (R-AR)
French Hill (R-AR)
Steve Womack (R-AR)
Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
Martha E. McSally (R-AZ)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
David Schweikert (R-AZ)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
Tom McClintock (R-CA)
Paul Cook (R-CA)
Jeff Denham (R-CA)
David Valadao (R-CA)
Devin Nunes (R-CA)
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)
Steve Knight (R-CA)
Ed Royce (R-CA)
Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Mimi Walters (R-CA)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Darrell Issa (R-CA)
Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Scott Tipton (R-CO)
Ken Buck (R-CO)
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Matt Gaetz (R-FL)
Neal Dunn (R-FL)
Ted Yoho (R-FL)
John Rutherford (R-FL)
Ron DeSantis (R-FL)
Bill Posey (R-FL)
Daniel Webster (R-FL)
Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)
Dennis A. Ross (R-FL)
Vern Buchanan (R-FL)
Tom Rooney (R-FL)
Brian Mast (R-FL)
Francis Rooney (R-FL)
Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Earl L. “Buddy” Carter (R-GA)
Drew Ferguson (R-GA)
Rob Woodall (R-GA)
Austin Scott (R-GA)
Doug Collins (R-GA)
Jody B. Hice (R-GA)
Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
Rick W. Allen (R-GA)
Tom Graves (R-GA)
Rod Blum (R-IA)
David Young (R-IA)
Steve King (R-IA)
Raul R. Labrador (R-ID)
Mike Simpson (R-ID)
Peter Roskam (R-IL)
Mike Bost (R-IL)
Rodney Davis (R-IL)
Randy Hultgren (R-IL)
John Shimkus (R-IL)
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL)
Darin M. LaHood (R-IL)
Jackie Walorski (R-IN)
Jim Banks (R-IL)
Todd Rokita (R-IN)
Susan W. Brooks (R-IN)
Luke Messer (R-IN)
Larry Buchson (R-IN)
Trey Hollingsworth (R-IN)
Roger Marshall (R-KS)
Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
Kevin Yoder (R-KS)
Ron Estes (R-KS)
James Comer (R-KY)
Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
Harold Rogers (R-KY)
Andy Barr (R-KY)
Steve Scalise (R-LA)
Clay Higgins (R-LA)
Mike Johnson (R-LA)
Ralph Abraham (R-LA)
Garret Graves (R-LA)
Andy Harris (R-MD)
Bruce Poliquin (R-ME)
Jack Bergman (R-MI)
Bill Huizenga (R-MI)
Justin Amash (R-MI)
John Moolenaar (R-MI)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)
Mike Bishop (R-MI)
Paul Mitchell (R-MI)
Dave Trott (R-MI)
Jason Lewis (R-MN)
Erik Paulsen (R-MN)
Tom Emmer (R-MN)
Ann Wagner (R-MO)
Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO)
Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
Sam Graves (R-MO)
Billy Long (R-MO)
Jason Smith (R-MO)
Trent Kelly (R-MS)
Gregg Harper (R-MS)
Steven M. Palazzo (R-MS)
George Holding (R-NC)
Virginia Foxx (R-NC)
Mark Walker (R-NC)
David Rouzer (R-NC)
Richard Hudson (R-NC)
Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC)
Mark Meadows (R-NC)
Ted Budd (R-NC)
Kevin Cramer (R-ND)
Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
Don Bacon (R-NE)
Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Tom MacArthur (R-NJ)
Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Mark Amodei (R-NV)
Lee Zeldin (R-NY)
Peter T. King (R-NY)
John J. Faso (R-NY)
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
Claudia Tenney (R-NY)
Tom Reed (R-NY)
Chris Collins (R-NY)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
Brad Wenstrup (R-OH)
Jim Jordan (R-OH)
Bob Latta (R-OH)
Bill Johnson (R-OH)
Bob Gibbs (R-OH)
Warren Davidson (R-OH)
Pat Tiberi (R-OH)
Steve Stivers (R-OH)
James B. Renacci (R-OH)
Jim Bridenstine (R-OK)
Markwayne Mullin (R-OK)
Frank D. Lucas (R-OK)
Tom Cole (R-OK)
Steve Russell (R-OK)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Mike Kelly (R-PA)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Glenn Thompson (R-PA)
Bill Shuster (R-PA)
Tom Marino (R-PA)
Lou Barletta (R-PA)
Keith Rothfus (R-PA)
Lloyd K. Smucker (R-PA)
Tim Murphy (R-PA)
Mark Sanford (R-SC)
Joe Wilson (R-SC)
Jeff Duncan (R-SC)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Tom Rice (R-SC)
Kristi Noem (R-SD)
Phil Roe (R-TN)
John J. Duncan Jr. (R-TN)
Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN)
Scott DesJarlais (R-TN)
Diane Black (R-TN)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
David Kustoff (R-TN)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Ted Poe (R-TX)
Sam Johnson (R-TX)
John Ratcliffe (R-TX)
Jeb Hensarling (R-TX)
Joe L. Barton (R-TX)
John Culbesron (R-TX)
Kevin Brady (R-TX)
Michael McCaul (R-TX)
K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Kay Granger (R-TX)
Mac Thornberry (R-TX)
Randy Weber (R-TX)
Bill Flores (R-TX)
Jodey Arrington (R-TX)
Lamar Smith (R-TX)
Pete Olson (R-TX)
Kenny Marchant (R-TX)
Roger Williams (R-TX)
Michael C. Burgess (R-TX)
Blake Farenthold (R-TX)
John Carter (R-TX)
Pete Sessions (R-TX)
Brian Babin (R-TX)
Rob Bishop (R-UT)
Chris Stewart (R-UT)
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Mia Love (R-UT)
Rob Wittman (R-VA)
Scott Taylor (R-VA)
Tom Garrett (R-VA)
Robert W. Goodlatte (R-VA)
Dave Brat (R-VA)
Morgan Griffith (R-VA)
Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA)
Paul D. Ryan (R-WI)
Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
Glenn Grothman (R-WI)
Sean P. Duffy (R-WI)
Mike Gallagher (R-WI)
David B. McKinley (R-WV)
Alex X. Mooney (R-WV)
Evan H. Jenkins (R-WV)
Liz Cheney (R-WY)
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
Whores for the fossil fuel industry
No, this blog is not about hookers, but thanks for reading.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt wants scientists to debate climate change on television. He thinks a group of scientists should meet on TV and have it out and settle the question once and for all in "a robust discussion for all the world to see."
Of course, scientists have been having this discussion now for decades, using the scientific method, which is a kind of debate in which the scientists with the best evidence win.
So, really, the robust debate has already settled the matter. Most of climate science's detractors are either people who distrust big government, or people in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. Many are not scientists; many of the ones who are scientists have no expertise in climate; many are politicians.
I have mentioned here before that there are some people whose distrust of big government is so all-consuming that it blinds them to other big entities that are not trustworthy. Industry, for example. Once upon a time, the whores worked for the tobacco industry. Now they're in the employ of the fossil fuel industry.
EPA chief Scott Pruitt wants scientists to debate climate change on television. He thinks a group of scientists should meet on TV and have it out and settle the question once and for all in "a robust discussion for all the world to see."
Of course, scientists have been having this discussion now for decades, using the scientific method, which is a kind of debate in which the scientists with the best evidence win.
So, really, the robust debate has already settled the matter. Most of climate science's detractors are either people who distrust big government, or people in the pay of the fossil fuel industry. Many are not scientists; many of the ones who are scientists have no expertise in climate; many are politicians.
I have mentioned here before that there are some people whose distrust of big government is so all-consuming that it blinds them to other big entities that are not trustworthy. Industry, for example. Once upon a time, the whores worked for the tobacco industry. Now they're in the employ of the fossil fuel industry.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
George Lakoff addresses a thorny problem, but is he successful?
Friends have been posting a lot of links to George Lakoff recently. He addresses one of the questions we liberals and progressives tear our hair out over: Why do Trump supporters not turn away from him, even when his policies hurt them?
Lakoff's answer is that voters vote their morality. Liberals and conservatives have different world views, which have more to do with how they vote than individual issues.
This, I think, is more true of conservatives than liberals. The liberal world view has more rationality to it.
Lakoff posits a Strict Father Family to account for conservatives' votes, and I think it works to explain a lot of the right's voting. In a family with a strict father, the father (and the family members agree) sees himself as the bringer of God's truth, and his duty is to make his wife and children obey. Strict punishment for straying from the true path is required. And truth is just what the father thinks it is, because God has made it so. These people vote as they do because they want to keep the country from moving away from God.
Lakoff thinks that we can't address the problem without understanding the cause. In this article, Lakoff doesn't provide any strategies for persuading conservatives to vote in line with their own interests, but elsewhere he has talked about how progressives need to reframe issues, for example calling regulations "protections." I am not at all sure that even these reframings can convince a person with these views to change his or her votes. Not only are many of these people against regulations, they're really morally opposed to protections, too.
Once again we see that being convinced that God has endorsed your way of life leads to suffering. Psychiatrists' couches are full of people with strict fathers who were idiots.
Lakoff's answer is that voters vote their morality. Liberals and conservatives have different world views, which have more to do with how they vote than individual issues.
This, I think, is more true of conservatives than liberals. The liberal world view has more rationality to it.
Lakoff posits a Strict Father Family to account for conservatives' votes, and I think it works to explain a lot of the right's voting. In a family with a strict father, the father (and the family members agree) sees himself as the bringer of God's truth, and his duty is to make his wife and children obey. Strict punishment for straying from the true path is required. And truth is just what the father thinks it is, because God has made it so. These people vote as they do because they want to keep the country from moving away from God.
Lakoff thinks that we can't address the problem without understanding the cause. In this article, Lakoff doesn't provide any strategies for persuading conservatives to vote in line with their own interests, but elsewhere he has talked about how progressives need to reframe issues, for example calling regulations "protections." I am not at all sure that even these reframings can convince a person with these views to change his or her votes. Not only are many of these people against regulations, they're really morally opposed to protections, too.
Once again we see that being convinced that God has endorsed your way of life leads to suffering. Psychiatrists' couches are full of people with strict fathers who were idiots.
Friday, June 30, 2017
Republican lawmakers, where are your consciences?
Some time ago, I expressed guarded optimism that politics in this country had hit bottom and that there were signs of a turnaround. In my limited experience I had never seen anything like Sarah Palin or her fellow ignoramuses. It seemed to me that some of the population was taking notice and getting involved in pushing back.
But all this was before Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a danger to our country on the international stage, and he spends a lot of his time making personal attacks on the personal enemies of the moment on Twitter.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate Republicans are taking advantage of the president's outrageous behavior to divert public attention from their attempts to kill their constituents while lining their own pockets and those of their billionaire patrons.
President Trump has demonstrated, since well before his election, that he is mentally unable to discharge his duties. Rather than defending the Constitution, as all presidents swear to do, he complains of its inconvenience. In fact, many Republicans of the Tea Party persuasion are not at all fond of constitutional restraints on their power.
But, really, Trump's danger to America and the world ought to be enough to scare even the benighted members of the so-called Freedom Caucus and their ilk. If there were another Katrina or another 9/11 on this president's watch, I fear that our government could not mount a response. Not even the feeble response of George W. Bush. Absolutely no response at all.
Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution would allow the government to limp along with Mike Pence as acting president while Donald Trump alternately plays golf and tweets. But I would prefer impeachment. The line of succession in that case is horrible (Pence, Ryan, Hatch, and it keeps getting worse from there), but any one of them is more competent than our current president.
Congresspeople and Senators, how alarmed are you? How much do you love our country? Can you please remove this man from the White House?
But all this was before Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a danger to our country on the international stage, and he spends a lot of his time making personal attacks on the personal enemies of the moment on Twitter.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate Republicans are taking advantage of the president's outrageous behavior to divert public attention from their attempts to kill their constituents while lining their own pockets and those of their billionaire patrons.
President Trump has demonstrated, since well before his election, that he is mentally unable to discharge his duties. Rather than defending the Constitution, as all presidents swear to do, he complains of its inconvenience. In fact, many Republicans of the Tea Party persuasion are not at all fond of constitutional restraints on their power.
But, really, Trump's danger to America and the world ought to be enough to scare even the benighted members of the so-called Freedom Caucus and their ilk. If there were another Katrina or another 9/11 on this president's watch, I fear that our government could not mount a response. Not even the feeble response of George W. Bush. Absolutely no response at all.
Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution would allow the government to limp along with Mike Pence as acting president while Donald Trump alternately plays golf and tweets. But I would prefer impeachment. The line of succession in that case is horrible (Pence, Ryan, Hatch, and it keeps getting worse from there), but any one of them is more competent than our current president.
Congresspeople and Senators, how alarmed are you? How much do you love our country? Can you please remove this man from the White House?
Saturday, June 10, 2017
The legislative battle of conservative and progressive theologies
Jack Jenkins, a writer for Think Progress, published an article on June 9, The strange origins of the GOP ideology that rejects caring for the poor, contrasting conservative and progressive theological approaches to poverty.
Politicians are backing up their ideologies with scripture. Republican legislators will cite Jesus's assertion that "The poor will always be with us," and Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians that "if a man will not work he shall not eat." Progressives push back with cases in which Jesus charged his disciples with helping the poor.
Jenkins: Conservative theology bad, progressive theology good.
What is not addressed in his opinion piece is the question of why, in our secular government, in the 21st Century, any legislator is using the Bible to prove anything, as though the Bible has any internal consistency as a moral guide, as though nobody has written anything more useful and reliable in the intervening centuries, as though the Bible were really the Word of God.
Conservatives are trying to prove, with scripture, that the poor deserve to be poor and are not favored by God; that the poor, to a man, do not want to work; that government assistance creates a class of people who are dependent on that assistance (although the poor already existed before the helping hand was extended), and that religious charity somehow does not have the same result.
Let us answer these questions by actually examining conservative and progressive approaches by looking at their results. We humans can figure out these human problems by ourselves. Scripture is no help. After all, scripture was once used to justify slavery. If you back up your arguments with scripture, you can justify any horrible human act.
Politicians are backing up their ideologies with scripture. Republican legislators will cite Jesus's assertion that "The poor will always be with us," and Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians that "if a man will not work he shall not eat." Progressives push back with cases in which Jesus charged his disciples with helping the poor.
Jenkins: Conservative theology bad, progressive theology good.
What is not addressed in his opinion piece is the question of why, in our secular government, in the 21st Century, any legislator is using the Bible to prove anything, as though the Bible has any internal consistency as a moral guide, as though nobody has written anything more useful and reliable in the intervening centuries, as though the Bible were really the Word of God.
Conservatives are trying to prove, with scripture, that the poor deserve to be poor and are not favored by God; that the poor, to a man, do not want to work; that government assistance creates a class of people who are dependent on that assistance (although the poor already existed before the helping hand was extended), and that religious charity somehow does not have the same result.
Let us answer these questions by actually examining conservative and progressive approaches by looking at their results. We humans can figure out these human problems by ourselves. Scripture is no help. After all, scripture was once used to justify slavery. If you back up your arguments with scripture, you can justify any horrible human act.
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Donald Trump discovers the Constitution
A while back, I identified a group of Bible thumping Christians for whom, I said, the New Testament is an inconvenience.
Now, it turns out, there is another group to be designated, and Donald Trump is their leader.
Now, it turns out, there is another group to be designated, and Donald Trump is their leader.
"It's a very rough system. It's an archaic system. It's really a bad thing for the country."Yes, Il Donald referred to the Constitution! It just gets in the way. It's hard to get things done. Trump leads a group of Constitution thumpers for whom the Bill of Rights is an inconvenience.
Thursday, May 4, 2017
No child left unpunished
Conservatives are anti-abortion, avowedly because of their aversion to a "murder of innocents." Today's passage in the House of Representatives of a hideously cruel health care bill demonstrates that the assumption of innocence ends at birth.
Republicans have claimed (Really, they have! Look it up!) that people with pre-existing conditions have made poor decisions about their health and deserve to pay for their own mistakes, without help from the healthy, who, without exception, are healthy because they are virtuous; not one of them is just lucky.
Infants born with birth defects are apparently to be punished for some sin of their parents, down to the umpteenth generation. Now, let's ask ourselves what sin a parent might have committed to merit their infant child's suffering. The only direct error I can imagine is that of parents who, during prenatal care, have discovered that their child will be born with a debilitating condition, yet feel for religious reasons that they must allow the child to be born.
Well, nobody can accuse conservatives of consistency, except perhaps in their desire to punish.
I have begun to suspect that the aim of the so-called pro-life movement is to make sure that no unlucky child be allowed to escape his or her miserable life.
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Displaying the Ten Commandments on courthouses
I lifted this information from Dan Barker's book Godless. I hope he won't mind.
The judges who insist on trying to display the Ten Commandments in their courthouses usually get sued by the ACLU on the basis of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The judges try to defend themselves by claiming that American law has its basis in the Ten Commandments. Does it? Let's take the Commandments one by one.
So, judges and elected officials, we're on to you. If you want to claim that American law is based on the Ten Commandments, save your breath. It isn't. And some of them are directly in opposition to the Constitution.
The judges who insist on trying to display the Ten Commandments in their courthouses usually get sued by the ACLU on the basis of the First Amendment of the Constitution. The judges try to defend themselves by claiming that American law has its basis in the Ten Commandments. Does it? Let's take the Commandments one by one.
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Well, that one is a clear violation of the First Amendment, and no laws exist (or can exist) insisting that Yahweh is top dog.
2. Thou shalt have no graven images or likenesses of me.That one's not encoded in American law either. Images of God, Jesus, and Mary abound in the United States with no legal consequences.
3. Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain.No laws about that in America either. Such a prohibition would violate everyone's freedom of speech.
4. Thou shalt remember the Sabbath Day and keep it holy.Again, nobody is forced by law to do or not do anything in particular on Saturday.
5. Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.That one's pretty vague, but any coerced honoring is normally done at home and is not a law enforcement matter.
6. Thou shalt not kill.So, we get to the Sixth Commandment before we find one that is encoded in American law. And, in truth, almost every set of laws has included this one, even before Moses came down with the tablets.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.No law against that either, as far as I know. It's grounds for divorce in civil law, but you can't go to jail for cheating.
8. Thou shalt not steal.The second of the ten that is codified in American law.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness.The third one out of ten.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's various possessions.No law against wishing you had something your neighbor has. Now, if you take action on that desire, you're in violation of #7 or #8.
So, judges and elected officials, we're on to you. If you want to claim that American law is based on the Ten Commandments, save your breath. It isn't. And some of them are directly in opposition to the Constitution.
Religion and the search for truth
A friend of mine recently noted that there are roughly 43,000 Christian denominations, and that therefore it's perhaps unwise to make government policy based on religious belief. The founding fathers did a brilliant thing with the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Indeed, think about why there are so many Christian denominations (and so many varieties of Judaism and Islam, by the way). Religious believers of all stripes believe that theirs is the true way. The creation of denominations happens when members of a given congregation disagree strongly enough on matters of faith that they split off and form their own new congregation. Keep in mind that this matter of faith is so nonnegotiable that a group of believers must separate themselves from their fellows.
In Christianity alone, there are thousands of these nonnegotiable disagreements. As a finder of absolute truth, religion must surely be judged a dismal failure.
Indeed, think about why there are so many Christian denominations (and so many varieties of Judaism and Islam, by the way). Religious believers of all stripes believe that theirs is the true way. The creation of denominations happens when members of a given congregation disagree strongly enough on matters of faith that they split off and form their own new congregation. Keep in mind that this matter of faith is so nonnegotiable that a group of believers must separate themselves from their fellows.
In Christianity alone, there are thousands of these nonnegotiable disagreements. As a finder of absolute truth, religion must surely be judged a dismal failure.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Recognizing a tyrant
We know that during the Second World War, the Nazi government, among other things, forced the resettlement of 1.7 million Poles from their homes to make room for Germans.
We also know that the Soviet Union, under Stalin, forced a mass movement of farmers in the service of collectivization.
My point is that tyrants, when trying to achieve their grand visions, move masses of people without a care for the suffering that results.
Donald Trump, during his campaign, promised to forcefully remove all illegal aliens from the United States, en masse. That is one way everyone should have recognized a tyrant when they saw one.
Trump, so far, has not made good on mass deportation, but he has, using his ICE Storm Troopers, aggressively and cruelly stepped up deportations, separating families and removing people who have lived here a long, long time, and who are great contributors to the American economy and culture.
He must go.
We also know that the Soviet Union, under Stalin, forced a mass movement of farmers in the service of collectivization.
My point is that tyrants, when trying to achieve their grand visions, move masses of people without a care for the suffering that results.
Donald Trump, during his campaign, promised to forcefully remove all illegal aliens from the United States, en masse. That is one way everyone should have recognized a tyrant when they saw one.
Trump, so far, has not made good on mass deportation, but he has, using his ICE Storm Troopers, aggressively and cruelly stepped up deportations, separating families and removing people who have lived here a long, long time, and who are great contributors to the American economy and culture.
He must go.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)