Month: March 2012

I don’t know what’s up with the comments at Fox News’ website. I rarely visit the site and I had never looked at the comments in any of their articles until the Trayvon Martin case became national news. I have to be honest, though. Their comments aren’t just racist. It’s like a competition to see who can make the most racist comment possible. I have occasionally skimmed white supremacist forums. I don’t like to do it because I worry that I’ll wind up under surveillance. But the few times I’ve checked those forums, they’ve been a lot more substantive and thoughtful about their racism than anything you see at Fox.

What do I mean by that? They actually have conversations about things and debate issues. They engage with each other and respond to what other people are saying. They may be interpreting everything in a really racist or anti-Semitic way, but they’re strategizing about how to do things. Maybe they’re focused on enacting stricter immigration laws or winning over new recruits or getting some of their folks elected. But it’s a forum. It’s a forum that isn’t 100% pointless.

And don’t get me wrong. I know that the comments sections of newspapers are notorious for their stupidity and hatred. But none of them that I’ve seen even begin to compare to what I’ve seen at Fox News in the last two weeks.

As I see it, there are two problems here. The first is that Fox News is clearly attracting a virulently racist online audience. The second is that they are not doing enough to monitor their threads. Fox News wants to sell advertising. That’s their business model. If they don’t clean up this mess, we just might make sure transcripts of these Trayvon Martin threads are emailed to every corporate board with a teevee advertising budget in the country, every newspaper, every congressman, and to the dreaded crew at MSNBC.

If they don’t clean it up, it must mean that they want to be one of the most racist forums in the country.

I have now listened to the entire presentation before the Supreme Court today and I have a few observations. First, while the Solicitor General was indeed nervous and less than nimble in his responses, he didn’t fall on his face as Jeffery Toobin would have you believe. Second, Justice Kennedy appears to need some convincing, but his tough questioning doesn’t clearly indicate how he will vote.

Kennedy’s stumbling block is that the insurance mandate compels people to do something. Namely, it requires them to engage in commerce. And it forces them to do this, potentially, against their will. He raised 10th Amendment concerns. Specifically, he mentioned that the 10th Amendment reserves certain powers to the people. In this same context, he raised an Article One question, arguing that the mandate is clearly a necessary provision of the bill, but that it isn’t necessarily a proper provision. If it isn’t proper, it’s because it violates the 10th amendment, not as it pertains to the states, but as it pertains to the people.

While this line of questioning certainly raises some concerns about Kennedy’s disposition, it should be noted that this is a phony distinction. Everyone agreed today that it would be permissible for the government to require anyone seeking emergency room care to purchase health insurance on the spot (at the point of sale). The question is only whether people can be compelled to buy insurance prior to the point of sale. When you think about this, Kennedy’s argument loses almost all of its power. His concern is about the implications of granting the federal government the power to compel the purchase of something, but he concedes that the government has that power. To say the least, it doesn’t make sense to wait until people are in a dire medical condition to force health insurance on them. I honestly think Kennedy is going to realize this. If he ultimately rules against this bill it will be because he is having trouble identifying a limiting principle that would allow the government to do this in the health insurance industry but not in other industries. And this is where the Solicitor General did not do a particularly good job.

It’s actually important that Kennedy conceded that the mandate is a necessary provision of the bill because that means he acknowledges that the mandate cannot be severed from the overall bill. The severability question will be debated before the Court tomorrow. If the mandate cannot be severed from the bill, it makes it a much bigger deal to strike it down. I think it makes it substantially less likely that Kennedy will strike the mandate.

Overall, the conservative Justices pursued a slippery slope argument. They conceded that the federal government could just set up a national health care service paid for with taxes. They conceded that people could be compelled to buy insurance. Their concern was focused less on the evil of the mandate than on its peculiar preemptive structure. They were searching for a way to isolate the forced purchase of insurance so that it would not lead to a precedent for other kinds of forced purchases.

Some observers came away thinking that Chief Justice Roberts was less skeptical of the mandate than Justice Kennedy. I’m not sure I agree with that. He asked less pointed questions about it, but I think people are making too much of Kennedy’s aggressive line of questioning and ignoring other comments he made along the way. For example, at one point (page 24) Justice Kennedy said that since Congress can just set up a single-payer system paid for with taxes maybe they should be given some latitude.

Don’t let Toobin freak you out. No one knows how this will shake out.

I really hope the health care law is upheld (though I don’t expect that to happen), and yet I’m sure that wouldn’t be the end of the fight by any means. I think, once they’re back in power, right-wingers really would try to do what Louie Gohmert predicts:

Liberals should be concerned about what a future “redneck president” could impose on them if the Supreme Court upholds the healthcare reform law’s mandate that everyone have insurance, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Monday.

“Let’s say you want to follow this administration’s idea of greatest good for the greatest number of people,” Gohmert said. “It ought to scare liberals to come run and join conservatives, because what it means is when this president’s out of the White House and you get a conservative in there, if this president has the authority under ObamaCare … to trample on religious rights, then some redneck president’s got the right to say, ‘you know what, there’s some practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare, so we’re going to have the right to rule over those as well.’ ”

Now, when Gohmert talks about “practices that go on in your house that cost people too much money and healthcare” I don’t think he’s referring to, say, eating too much greasy takeout food and washing it down with half a dozen Bud tallboys and/or crystal meth and never getting more exercise than the amount you get walking from the TV chair to the driver’s seat of the pickup truck. I know exactly what he means — he means gay sex, because thoroughly discredited right-wing pseudo-science, which is believed by a large percentage of the right, including right-wingers who claim to be sophisticated, tells us that gay men and lesbians have shockingly brief lifespans and die sooner than straight people from all sorts of causes, including accidents. Oh, and I’m sure he’s also referring to abortion, which all right-wingers “know” causes breast cancer, even though that assertion has been thoroughly debunked. And I almost forgot the supposed link between having an abortion and depression, even though that’s also been debunked.

Right-wingers never admit defeat, so if they somehow manage to lose at the Supreme Court on the mandate issue, they absolutely will take advantage of it the next time they control the entire federal government. And if you think they won’t try to use pseudo-science in legislation, obviously you haven’t been paying attention to the climate change debate in America.

Now, it’s not at all clear that they can actually succeed in these efforts. But they’ll certainly be more than happy to waste everyone’s time trying, because payback is their idea of good governance.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

I was in favor of a public option for at least three reasons. The first was political. I knew that people would hate being told that they had to buy health insurance from a private for-profit company. Being compelled to spend money is never a good feeling, but being compelled to contribute to someone else’s profit seems like a violation of personal liberty. The second reason was personal. I hate the insurance industry and, in particular, the health insurance industry. I don’t want to give them any money or support. The third reason was ideological. I want to destroy both the health insurance industry and the employer-provided health insurance system, and a public option would probably accomplish that over time.

Yet. I was able to set all those interests and feelings aside in order to see tens of millions of people who are exposed to financial ruin and who have little to no access to health care get some security and better health. We never had the votes for a public option, and I’m not going to harp on it. The polls predictably show that people hate the health insurance mandate. That it is being attacked as unconstitutional is not surprising in the least.

Based on all precedent, the law is not unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court can change that if they see fit. Today, we will get our first hints on whether or not they intend to upend 150 years of constitutional law. And I’m feeling quite apprehensive.

We should remember that the individual mandate originated as a conservative concept based on the idea that freeloaders should not be given a pass to push their health costs on to the rest of us. When Republicans first began touting the individual mandate, they talked about it proudly as an alternative to an employer mandate. They wanted to shift the responsibility for insuring people’s health from private businesses to their employees. It was a matter of personal responsibility. Democrats hated the idea at the time, and most of us still hate it. If you want to compel us to be responsible, then take the money out of our taxes like you do with withholding taxes, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Above all, don’t act all outraged when we take your idea and implement it.

The legal battle against the individual mandate would be easier to take if it was being waged by civil libertarians rather than the authors of the idea. In my entire life, nothing has struck me as more disingenuous than the Republicans’ opposition to the individual mandate. The only thing that comes close is their opposition to TARP.

God, save us from conservative political columnists who write stupid, jock-fawning columns about sports. And save us from conservative political columnists who write columns claiming that they understand what motivates people they don’t agree with.

I’m a bit late to the party, but over the weekend Russ Douthat managed to do both in one wankerific contemplation of Tim Tebow’s future in New York:

Why is Tim Tebow such a fascinating and polarizing figure? Not just because he claims to be religious; that claim is commonplace among football stars and ordinary Americans alike. Rather, it’s because his conduct — kind, charitable, chaste, guileless — seems to actually vindicate his claim to be in possession of a life-altering truth.

Uh, no. Tebow is a polarizing (and repellent) figure because, unlike almost every single one of the literally thousands of other Christian professional athletes in North America, he constantly and ostentatiously draws attention to himself and his faith on the playing field. And because doing so has made him one of his sport’s biggest celebrities by appealing to other evangelical Christians, completely independent of his ability (or lack of it) on the playing field.

Tebow has become one of the game’s biggest stars – despite being so limited in his quarterback play that Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway got rid of him at the first opportunity – specifically because he rubs other people’s noses in his faith, and because his co-religionists love it. Douthat managed 800 words or so of chin-stoking about faith and virtue and scripture and how Tebow will thrive in New York, without ever mentioning any of these rather central facts.

Next fall, Tebow will be in competition for playing time with Mark Sanchez, a playboyish (and also flawed) quarterback, and there will be endless wanking about the contrast in the personal lives of the two of them. Luckily these will be mitigated by all the sober, thoughtful contemplations of the Mormon Romney and the secret Muslim Obama.

I miss journalism.

Normally, I try to understand what’s going on in Washington DC so I can give you an informed opinion. But I’m a little flummoxed about what the GOP is doing here. The Senate Republicans changed course and voted overwhelmingly for cloture on a bill that would strip Big Oil of a lot of their tax breaks. Then Mitch McConnell indicated that he’s eager to have a debate on the issue:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor Monday that “common sense and basic economics” show that raising industry taxes will send gasoline prices even higher.

“This is the Democrat response to high gas prices,” he said ahead of the vote.

“And frankly, I can’t think of a better way to illustrate how completely out of touch they are on this issue. And that’s why Republicans plan to support moving forward on a debate over this legislation, because it’s a debate the country deserves,” McConnell said.

So, it seems plain that the GOP thinks they can win a debate over protecting Big Oil’s tax breaks by arguing that the those tax breaks will lower prices at the pump. I think that’s dubious. What this also seems to demonstrate is that the Republicans think they can get a few straying Democrats to kill the bill. And they could be right. Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mark Begich of Alaska all voted against cloture. We know how Big Oil rules Louisiana and Alaska, so I am not surprised by these defections. But if those are the only three Democratic senators who will vote with Big Oil, the bill will pass at 50-50 with the vice-president breaking the tie.

But I guess McConnell can risk losing since the House won’t do ANYTHING to upset the energy industry.

If you were a sex slave who had recently been rescued, do you think you might want access to the full plethora of women’s reproductive health care, including (potentially) abortion services and information about contraception? Well, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops didn’t think so. And since the USCCB had a huge contract with the federal government to help victims of human trafficking that meant the official federal policy was being conflated with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The ACLU sued and just won their case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The judge is a Clinton-appointee. If this case were to hold up under appeal, it would probably end the rationale for continuing George W. Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Which would be fine by me.

Basically, the judge said the government can’t subcontract to a religious group if that religious group is going to use the money to impose its religious beliefs on others. The Obama administration had already terminated the USCCB’s contract. Now they look justified.

This is my rug about Alzheimers. I hope to finish it soon, but I’ve been teaching rug hooking workshops and haven’t had time to sit and work on it.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/Rughooker/d9d9a921.jpg

I also have a new book about rughooking, which I’m very excited about. It’s at Amazon, under Rug Hookers Companion. It’s coming out in November of this year.

Busy!

Paul Krugman has a great column today about the American Legislative Exchange Council, otherwise known as ALEC:

What is ALEC? Despite claims that it’s nonpartisan, it’s very much a movement-conservative organization, funded by the usual suspects: the Kochs, Exxon Mobil, and so on. Unlike other such groups, however, it doesn’t just influence laws, it literally writes them, supplying fully drafted bills to state legislators. In Virginia, for example, more than 50 ALEC-written bills have been introduced, many almost word for word. And these bills often become law.

Many ALEC-drafted bills pursue standard conservative goals: union-busting, undermining environmental protection, tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. ALEC seems, however, to have a special interest in privatization — that is, on turning the provision of public services, from schools to prisons, over to for-profit corporations.

Krugman goes on to discuss ALEC’s support for Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which would seem to advance no corporatist goal but is certainly the kind of bill that keeps right-wing voters turning out to vote Republican, which ultimately serves ALEC’s fat-cat goals.

But I want to talk about some of that privatization ALEC likes so much.

Do you remember Pat Robertson’s declaration, a couple of weeks ago, that marijuana should be legal? That got a lot of attention, including a fair amount of praise from lefties.

I was skeptical. In late 2010, I wrote an I-smell-a-rat post when Robertson hinted at support for marijuana decriminalization. I was skeptical because he seemed to be trying to drum up business for prison outreach ministries with this campaign:

… Calling it getting “smart” on crime, Robertson aired a clip on a recent episode of his 700 Club television show that advocated the viewpoint of drug law reformers who run prison outreach ministries.

A narrator even claimed that religious prison outreach has “saved” millions in public funds by helping to reduce the number of prisoners who return shortly after being released….

(continued below)
And look who was announcing support for initiatives of this kind at precisely that moment:

A group of national conservatives led by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Russell Keene of the American Conservative Union, and former Attorney General Ed Meese unveiled the“Right On Crime” initiative and website….

Norquist noted that criminal justice is a legitimate function of government but that conservatives ought to be interested in saving money and performing that function as efficiently as possible. He added that much of the conservative interest in rehabilitation and prison reform started with faith-based organizations.

Chuck Colson with Prison Fellowship Industries and Pat Nolan with the Justice Fellowship are among the supporters of the Right On Crime Initiatives….

Now let’s wander over to the Prison Overcrowding page at the ALEC Web site. Gosh — it appears that ALEC has the same goals:

Governors and corrections officials have the responsibility of conscientiously reducing corrections spending by utilizing evidenced-based practices, such as expanding vocational skills, educational opportunities, and religious programs….

Inmates should be encouraged to participate in faith-based programs.

And what do you know — the “private sector chair” of ALEC’s Corrections and Reentry Working Group is Pat Nolan of Prison Fellowship, the group most associated with Pat Robertson’s ally Chuck Colson. You’ll see Nolan’s name above, as a supporter of Right On Crime, along with Norquist and Meese and the rest.

So don’t give Pat too much credit for wisdom on pot. It’s a right-wing thing. It’s an ALEC thing. If this happens, the rich have less government to pay for and a significant part of the right-wing coalition gets to treat more and more people involved in drugs as rehab cases, not criminals — for a fee.

(X-posted at No More Mister Nice Blog.)

I made a series of comments on Booman’s article Trayvon Martin: The Prez Can’t Win opposing what is going on in this case. I seem to be one of only a few people here who think that we should back off and let the facts speak for themselves. Have the facts spoken yet? No, they have not. Instead we have had possible pro-Zimmerman attitudes from the local authorities and a huge chorus of anti-Zimmerman yelps from almost the entire media system and from those who pay it much serious attention as well.

But one of the most recent comments…from Tarheel Dem, who is usually above such foolishness…was the last straw as far as I am concerned.

Here is the sentence that put me over the edge:

It is now likely that Zimmerman is now a flight risk.

“Flight risk!!!???”

He’s got a $10,000 bounty on his ass!

New Black Panther Party Offers $10K Bounty For George Zimmerman

Mikhail Muhammad of the New Black Panther Party speaks to the media next to a memorial to Trayvon Martin outside The Retreat at Twin Lakes community where Trayvon was shot and killed by George Michael Zimmerman.

Now…I don’t know who these jokers are, but if I was Mr. Zimmerman and I saw them saying this shit in my neighborhood? I would not only be a flight risk, I’d be disappeared before I finished reading the article.

This illustrates exactly what I have been saying here, and I am truly ashamed to be even a peripheral, opposing part of this reverse lynch mob. ‘Cuz that is exactly what is going down in this case. A national lynch mob, driven by racial politics, media hype and not a shred else. Get your heads straight, O high and mighty “progressives.”

You have once again been had.

STAMPEDE!!!

The Attack Of The Liberal Zombies

Clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp clomp.

String ’em up!!! Goddamned racist killer!!!

Read on for more if your mind is not already so tightly shut that it would take a good oyster shucker to get it open again.

Read on and think, goddamnit!
Now…did our original fine, white supremacist lynch mobs occasionally also string up real criminals? I suppose so. But the act was still wrong, and you all know that it was. But in this case?

Oh, no!!! It was a hate crime, fer sure!!!”

Prove it or shut the fuck up until all the facts are in.

Please.

1-The kid was suspended from high school because he was busted w/a bag of marijuana leavings. Does that automatically make him a bad kid? No, of course it doesn’t. But it also means that he was no saint, for sure.

2-There are a 911 call, an eyewitness account, and physical evidence of injury that all point towards the fact that Zimmerman was indeed under physical attack and losing. Does that mean he should not have confronted the kid in the first place? Shot him? No, but it does mean that something other than this supposed “vicious, racist killing of an unarmed, innocent, sweet-faced young boy” was happening.

3-Trayvon Martin was 17 years old. He played football and appears to have decked this grown man with one punch. That sweet picture of him, the one that’s being used to fuel this whole dustup by our OH so impartial media??

I teach kids this age almost every weekend who are from the same sort of middle-class/working class/mixed-race neighborhoods as this boy came from…the Newark area version (I live in one as well, inna Bronx.)…and lemme tell you right now, it looks to me like that’s about a 14 year old boy in that picture, not 17. Those 3 years can make a world of difference in how kids look and how they act, especially if they’re getting high and acting out. Bet on it.

This rush to judgement is absolutely unconscionable. Lay the fuck off and let’s see if the Omertican InJustice system can get its act together here.

At long last, folks…have you no decency left? Must it all be about politics now?

Really.

Please.

AG