"Up on Cripple Creek" - The Band
I am too busy to crash CPAC, although it's tempting being only three Metro stops away. Oh who am I kidding -- I am afeared of the kind of beat down I might get from Jonah Goldberg and Robert Stacey McCain if I dares show my face in such manly company. For some reason the words "stwike him vewwy woughly" are embedded in my mind.
- A lot has been written about this profile of anti-gay marriage zealot Maggie Gallagher in Salon. It's a pretty fascinating read. Gallagher is a living breathing embodiment of the concept of "vicious abstraction" -- a kind of thinking where the actual consequences of political advocacy on real live human beings is rendered meaningless. One could almost feel sorry for this deeply damaged woman except for the fact that she is dedicating her life to depriving people of equal rights and of seeking to keep them second class citizens. Oh, that and she has lived an incredibly privileged life and all of her wounds are essentially self-inflicted. It is an interesting phenomenon to watch -- you have someone whose central life trauma is that the guy who impregnated her wouldn't marry her and she decides that her life's mission should be to stop other people from obtaining that which she clearly wanted so badly. Twisted, twisted stuff.
- It will be interesting to see just how embarrassingly groveling Romney's speech to CPAC is going to be.
- And this isn't going to help the mood at the conference. Mitt without electability as one of his attributes ceases to have any appeal at all to the GOP true believers. (Note too that this poll is from the notoriously GOP-slanted Rasmussen.)
- I really hope the Administration doesn't back down on the contraception coverage issue. I think it can be a winner. This worries me.
What's on your minds?
SC - looking at what the link said, this seems to extend Obama's pattern over the past year of extending concessions that don't really concede very much. From the link:
The main concern I'd have about this is whether the insurance companies will be required to 'reach out' and offer free contraceptive coverage in a clear, unmistakable, and easy-to-respond fashion, or whether they can bury it in the middle of several pages of legalese, and require women to jump through lots of hoops to get this coverage.
The devil's at least somewhat in the details. But on the surface, I don't see a problem.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 10, 2012 at 11:20 AM
In response to PP et al, a number of Democratic senators up for re-election start petition: One Million Strong for Women http://bit.ly/yngY3a
(Maybe this is a vehicle to coalesce the progressive base?)
Two recent tweets from pourmecoffee:
Romney has big CPAC speech tomorrow, titled "Settle For Me."
When Romney speaks at CPAC, he should come out, clear throat, sing "I Can't Make You Love Me", drop mic, and leave
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 11:30 AM
I heart The Band, always have, always will. Here's to Robbie, Richard, Rick, Levon and Garth.
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 11:41 AM
l-t c,
I suspect that you are right. Planned Parenthood seemed comfortable with the statement.
I am going to get clarification from some people about how this will work.
One thing that hasn't been made clear is that the cost of providing contraceptive coverage usually works out to be zero. Basically by avoiding one pregnancy you pay for a whole lot of contraceptive coverage.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 10, 2012 at 11:43 AM
As for >>This worries me<<, I don't see why the insurers would comply with this. Could open a huge can of worms. What about other religious groups with similar agendas, medical procedures/medications/therapies for conditions way beyond contraception (like circumcision, therapy for ED, cosmetic surgery, end-of-life care) and just how would expenses for those benefits be paid for? By passing the bill along from the catholic church to everyone else? I don't think so. We could have not only a class war but a religious war on our hands.
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Paula,
Mitt really should try playing hard to get, but it's not really his strong suit.
Re: The Band -- I am particularly fond of Levon Helm's voice. Their version of Dylan's "Blind Willie McTell" just blows me away. Interestingly, it seems that both Helm and Rick Danko saw Richard Manuel as the lead singer of the group. I like Manuel's voice, but Helm's has a unique quality I think.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 10, 2012 at 11:51 AM
Both Rick Danko and Richard Manuel are dead, sad to say. Levon Helm is still out there, solo, and Robbie Robertson is a powerhouse composer/producer for film and television. Not sure about Garth Hudson.
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM
Evidently Garth Hudson is still quite active on the music scene. His organ sound is pretty amazing. My personal favorite would be his playing on "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues" on the live recording of Dylan's Royal Albert Hall concert in 1966. Just an amazing performance.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 10, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Here we go -- what Democrats do know how to do .
Bring the satire on!
Posted by: nancy | February 10, 2012 at 12:49 PM
i think this was not much of a concession, too. it just keeps the catholic church out of the provision of this piece of care, but still provides the care w/o additional cost to the employee. win win. and as SC points out, it doesn't cost the ins.co. any more; saves 'em a bundle in prenatal care, etc. it should just be a matter of the ins.co. getting asking insureds if they want this free rider.
paula -- i don't think this really opens all those other doors. catholic hospitals are actually good on end-of-life care; or at least the one that treated my mom after her stroke was. she had life-threatening medical complications about 6 weeks after the stroke; there had not been improvement in her brain functions; and i lost it when a specialist said we would "have" to do this and that invasive thing. but the hospital had an excellent hospice program, and they were very supportive of our decision for only comfort care -- even though that clearly meant she would die soon.
catholics don't mind circumcision. ED seems to be covered well enough; better than contraception, a few years ago. cosmetic surgery generally is not covered unless there is medical need -- reconstruction, yes; boob implants for the fun of it, no -- so i don't see that as a burning issue.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 10, 2012 at 01:10 PM
nancy -- love it!
Posted by: kathy a. | February 10, 2012 at 01:12 PM
nancy, those are really great.
Posted by: big bad wolf | February 10, 2012 at 01:39 PM
kathy, I'm glad you had a good experience with a catholic hospital, and really glad your mother was able to take advantage of the hospice benefit. I wish my dad has been as fortunate.
I worked for a (secular) hospice for a few years, and we didn't have such good outcomes with a few catholic hospitals. They wanted to go light on drugs to keep patients fully conscious until the very end, presumably so they could tie up loose ends and meet their maker full on. Also, had problem with them de-narcing pts instead of giving them the extra morphine asked for. This happened in ERs when home-based pts went into catholic hospitals as emergencies and our hospice nurses couldn't get there quick enough to advocate for then. Our director and many of our nurses were catholic, but still went head-to head with staff at catholic hospitals who did not want to follow our protocols, which were standard for hospice care at the time. That was in NY in 1990s. Maybe things have changed. Also, I was trying to think beyond the catholic church to include other major religions plus fringe groups, who might take exception to some modern or western medical practices. If we give in to one...
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Sorry, I should not have used the term fringe. That was disrespectful on my part.
Just did a quick run through religion-based hospital chains in the US and found ones run by Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, Jews, Methodists and Presbyterians, in addition to many run by the Catholic Church. I knew two Buddhist hospice/hospital chaplains and have interviewed at least two Buddhist Hmong physicians (in California and Minnesota) who work side-by-side with shamans if their patients insist. I'm not certain what, if any, impact these religious groups would have on benefits provided to employees or even patients in their hospitals, but surely we must be considerate of every group's moral structure when we start granting religious exceptions to any law.
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 02:27 PM
paula -- good for your hospice staff, going to bat for patients at the end of life. i do think hospice has achieved better status in recent years.
but i know there can be complications. my dad had a DNR order, which got overlooked when he ended up in the ER, and so he was intubated, which he hate hate hated. that was a another catholic hospital, but the problem really was a mixup about the DNR order; and then they needed to get him stablized before they could take the tube out -- the up side is that he was so relieved when the tube was out, and we shared some jokes before he slipped into a coma, and all his kids were there when he died the next day.
stinginess on pain meds is a major sore point for me. wtf are they thinking? addiction is not a problem if someone is dying. pain is not quality of life.
catholic hospitals and universities are businesses, and pretty big ones. i read someplace in the last day that 28 states already require them to provide coverage for contraceptives. this is a teapot tempest, and i think this is an OK workaround -- since workers will be covered for their medical needs. that's the bottom line.
i think we can afford to take other fights on a case by case basis. far as i know, nobody is advocating breast implants, liposuction, and tummy tucks for all. i'm not aware of business operations similar to catholic hospitals refusing to cover circumcisions, for example, on religious freedom grounds.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 10, 2012 at 02:27 PM
commented before seeing your comment! you know, i think most people drawn to medical practice, even for religious reasons, try to accommodate other beliefs. we just hear about the hardliners, and the catholic church is a big one -- and the bishops are not there in the hospitals providing care, and working alongside those of other faiths.
the catholic church has somehow lived with state requirements; it can live with federal ones, too.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 10, 2012 at 02:32 PM
This, from today's Globe:
http://ht.ly/8ZY95
When Romney was shaping his 2006 health care overhaul, he wanted to allow insurance plans that offered coverage only for hospitalization and catastrophic illness, without other mandated benefits. But the Legislature rejected his proposal. He wrote in his 2009 book “No Apology” that he believed features added by the Legislature, including mandates for in vitro fertilization and dental care, would be expensive.
But the contraception mandate never came up. “I don’t remember when Romney was governor any discussion of contraception,” said Nancy Turnbull, an associate dean at the Harvard School of Public Health, who sits on the board of the Massachusetts insurance exchange.
[Nancy Turnbull is très kewl.]
Posted by: Paula B | February 10, 2012 at 03:21 PM
A Boston media voice from Sir C's (& others') past has been silenced.
Posted by: oddjob | February 10, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Boston's (the city, not the band) influence in this year's Grammy nominations
Posted by: oddjob | February 10, 2012 at 04:24 PM
re above-linked satires -- I have to say I was relieved to find this out about the Python clip -- last sentence especially:
According to the interview with Michael Palin on the DVD extras, he said "at the end of my sock" in the original scene, with the word "cock" being overdubbed later. This was done because the scene features numerous underage children and they (Pythons) were already "pushing the limit." Years later, several of the child actors stated they had no idea what they were singing about.
Pretty impressive production values too. :)
Posted by: nancy | February 10, 2012 at 05:12 PM
Sir Charles:
I am surprised no one here has commented on that Maggie Gallagher piece. You are right in that she's a deeply damaged individual. What's interesting to me is that she tries to be a Catholic while being a Randian to people outside her circle. Basically the uncaring callousness. Basically, her whole life is wrapped up in some kind of revenge fantasy.
Posted by: Phil Perspective | February 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Phil,
Me too. I was fascinated, appalled, a bit mystified.
And maybe it's the lawyer in me, but the lack of linear thinking is maddening. If the boyfriend who had jilted her had run off to San Francisco and become the belle of Castro Street it would make at least a small bit of sense. But this . . .
It really is worth a read for those of you who haven't taken a peak.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM
This is sorta in keeping with the thread -- and was too good to pass up (and not sure if someone already caught it). From Sarah Posner at RD:
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 10, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Phil -- I think that's because there's simply been not much to say about Gallagher for quite a long time. Damage is damage. Many [most of us] share some, yet she doesn't seem able to work her way through it.
Not sure why she continues to be any kind of voice worth wondering about. In my 'mental file' she exists along side people like the very self-satisfied and cavalier Schlafly. Wouldn't it be wonderful for them to tune into younger women, and men, and the changes that have happened since they were young. Just not going to happen.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
'A Conservative's tips for finding the right mate'. Here they are at CPAC with the usual deft and subtle light touch in the approach to connecting with others.
'Sperm magic' t-shirts optional I guess.
"Conservative people have a hard time hooking up," Elise says. "They have a hard time meeting people sometimes because they're way too serious." Have a sense of humor, Elise advises his audience. "Be yourself and avoid being mundane."
Dating Tips From The 'Libertarian Hitch'
Be yourself and express your desires
Loosen up — don't be conservative in your dating style
Bring chapstick
Show your wacky side
Suggest dates that appeal to the other person's interests
Oh.
Posted by: nancy | February 10, 2012 at 11:48 PM
I am surprisingly amazed with your post. Can't believe i'm gonna find this information from you. Keep up the good work :)
Posted by: Dentists Seattle | February 11, 2012 at 08:32 AM
And I am amazing surprised by your comment.
No, you keep up the good work little spambot.
Posted by: Sir Charles | February 11, 2012 at 09:17 AM
Nancy:
Maybe you, and others, knew more about her but I certainly didn't. I just knew she was the evil women who headed(or used to) NOM. I didn't know anything in the Salon story.
Posted by: Phil Perspective | February 11, 2012 at 01:36 PM
Phil -- I didn't know the bio details either nor how involved she's been fighting SSM. I remembered her from the nineties when hers was one of the 'voices' conservatives turned to when wringing their hands about the lives of feminists, single-mothers, and unwed mothers, all bad, as decay spread across the land. The Salon piece was too kind, I thought, in the sort of way that ends with me being annoyed with myself. When it's so automatic for a person like her to think about her fellows so abstractly, I don't want my empathy impulses to kick in. But they do. And when it comes to the entire conservative project, that lack of empathy coming from the 'other side' angers me lots.
I'm tired of being two-dimensionalized by the likes of her. Female, intelligent and well-spoken, she's lent the whole enterprise a veneer it doesn't deserve. I will say that the argument about children in SSM homes might be made plausible if the cruelty of children to one another at certain ages is factored in. That, I admit, I've thought about. No parent can entirely predict and fend that cruelty off.
The business about the biological grandmother I thought kind of summed it up. Her sentiments counted, the grandmother's didn't and her son left out of the equation. Odd.
Posted by: nancy | February 11, 2012 at 07:09 PM
nancy, i think you nailed it -- the frustration with being reduced to a stick figure by her views, then preached upon.
she is an odd duck in terms of emotional connections and because really her assessments are so shallow and goal-driven. she strikes me as working essentially from a sample set of one, her self and her choices and her ideas, with random support if she finds it. [been a couple days since i read her thing, so maybe i'm off.] who knew a career as a poster child could pay so handsomely, when one poses as redeemed and with a vengeance?
i know what you are saying about kids of same sex marriage -- that they may be marginalized and bullied more than other kids. same danger with kids of single parents, kids of divorce, kids who are small, kids who are slower than others, kids whose skin might be darker, kids whose families are poor; nerds, artists, readers, kids who are different in any way. lots and lots of kids. it's the bullying that's the problem, not those kids.
i didn't comment before on maggie, because it is all so tiresome.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 11, 2012 at 07:51 PM
here's one from the ladies against women -- kind of dated, but still relevant.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 11, 2012 at 08:08 PM
Speaking of being respectful of other people's moral structure, the bishops are pissed.
Posted by: paula b | February 12, 2012 at 01:01 AM
I'm sorry to say that the Gallager piece reminded me of my sister, another Catholic conservative who is capable of making very well-informed theological arguments that are utterly devoid of any empathy for the involved parties. Remember the hideous case in Brazil a few years ago, in which a man impregnated his 10 y/o stepdaughter with twins, the girl's mother obtained a legal abortion because the girl's life was in danger, and the local archbishop excommunicated the mother and the doctor but not the stepfather? I vividly remember my sister arguing quite calmly that that was the correct decision, as the mother and doctor had committed mortal sins but the stefather's was "merely" venial. I was blown away by her lack of any consideration for the girl's suffering. Incidentally, SC, she's a lawyer, though she hasn't worked in years.
Posted by: Beckya57a | February 12, 2012 at 01:46 AM
Nicely complex thread. As a man I think it is fairly important to speak out about the presumptive situation of women.
I have never in my life sought to dominate another human being, and in particular, with women, whom I have always had a great interest in, I have always tried to relate on an equal plain. It is not easy, our destinies are different.
Biology is a kind of cruel bit of reality that we have to contend with whether we want to or not. Considering the enormous burden of reproduction imposed upon the female by biology, us lucky males should be discrete and careful. That's philosophy. The biology is that males get to spread their genes by impregnating females. There are myriads of examples of how this works on different levels with diverse species and it works on humans in so many different ways that they are really not countable.
We are all biologically endowed with this fundamental urge to reproduce. The question now is, will we exercise our intelligence, our self awareness, and curb the tendency to pursue biology's extravagent profligacy, or will we cower before the challenge to our reason that is posed by the stern and unmoved reality we face?
Posted by: KN | February 12, 2012 at 04:29 AM
Political miscellany #1:
Anyone see 'barackobama's "Spotify" list? To her credit, Rschel Maddow had Jason Bailey review it.
It was apparently picked by his aides and is as phony a piece of political pandering as possible. Bailey says: 'The resultant playlist is, in some ways, a lot like Obama’s first term: filled with strange choices that were clearly made in an ultimately futile attempt to please everyone."
The list got blasted, deservedly -- half the songs seem to have been put on for titles alone, never mind what was in the actual song. But I wonder what the response would have been like if Romney had been the one to release the same list. Stewart would have milked it for three days, and Colbert would probably have ended every show for a month with the worst section of eah song.
I know, candidates have long passed the stage where the worst embarassment was kissing a bay with a filled diaper that leaked just when the baby started crying, and that both John McCain and Barack Obama have -- on imdb -- listings for their statements at a WWF show -- though only Obama and the Clintons were imitated -- and chased out of the ring -- at the event. (No, I didn't see it, my taste isn't that low, the imdb even includes individual episode descriptions.)
Still, one of the minor 'changes' I'd 'hoped' for was getting rid of nonsense like this.
And to add seriousness to the trivial -- one of the rare but extremely annoying remarks I've ever heard Sir Charles make was something I never got around to bringing up at the time. He said something along the line of "President Obama is apparently choosing to run a populist campaign."
Okay, apologies for my ectreme naivete, but I really want a candidate -- in the future, we have who we have for this election -- who won't "choose" a Populist campaign like he was walking into an equivalent of Men's Wearhouse and getting 'suitably outfitted' for the season.
I'd like to actually see a candidate run a populist campaign because he IS a populist, and because he believes a political campaign should be about who he was and how he will govern, and not just how accurately he gauges the taste and gullibility of the populace.
But then I'm getting to be more and more of a futile scold as I age.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 03:48 PM
Meanwhile, with the Republican Traveling Circus heading to Arizona, maybe some of the actual journalists might take some time to find out some of the things that have been happening in the state, besides SB1070. Things like the games Brewer tried with the redictricting committee.
(Of course, that's for journalists, not blimp riders. The mere suggestion that they should 'come down and look around' gets a "Heaven Forfend" from the brandy sniffers and a "Yougaddabekiddin" from the rye drinkers.)
And Sir Charles, you better brush up on events there if you have any clients among the state employees, because Brewer is pulling one as bad as Scott Walker's, only more subtle. Her trick is to remove protections from new hires and anyone who voluntarily transfers -- as well as supervisors and (for some reason) IT people. The Arizona Eagletarian (love the name which is 'sic') has the details.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 04:07 PM
Okay, this time I am thread-drowning, but to make a point. I'm just jumping around a few of the 'ground-hugger' blogs, and passing on things that really just might be worth knowing about. (On my optimistic days and this AIN'T one as you've probably noticed, I dream of stories like these actually being used in campaigns, being made part of an overall anti-Republican campaign. Today I'll be staisfied if anyone actually hears about them.)
Still in Arizona:
(The emphasis is because the standards for cable are looser, but it is the stricter broadcast ones in the law.)
Then there's this -- the whole thing is courtesy David Safier at Blog for Arizona --
But Arizona is always an easy target. "A little traveling music, please!"
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 04:19 PM
As we head Eastward, you might enjoy this along the way as Conservatives have speed dates with...
Naw, just read it, he's funnier than I am.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 04:34 PM
Touching down in Michigan, we find an interesting answer to the 'privatizing prisons' debate -- wonder if it would apply in other states. (Oh, anybody hear much of this from the blimp lately? It strikes me that 'prison privatization' might actually make its way there.)
From the Detroit News -- it's okay, it is actually online so you don't have to see marks on paper:
Anyone else using this attack?
(h/t Michigan Liberal)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Also from Michigan -- same h/t but from The Macomb Daily. (Good thing no blimp riders would stoop to reading a comment thread, or they'd faint at the thought of a newspaper that actually concentrated on one county.)
Here's one that sorta kinda might interest senior citizens:
I doubt if this is the only news from Michigan -- and people actually noticed the Hoekstra ad -- bad, bad, Pete (but don't worry we won't make a point of you being a Republican). So grab some snacks, hit the rest rooms and get back to the bus in a half hour or so.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 04:53 PM
Waving hello to Southern Beale I discover that there are still types of combat that women are prohibited from being assigned to -- mostly special forces and infantry. I really thought we'd passed that stage sometime on the oughts.
And she also reports that unlike other Midwest States, South Dakota legislators unanimously voted down a ban on public employee collective bargaining. Sometimes even the good news gets missed -- besides, c'mon, South Dakota, really, we're even supposed to care about what happens there?
And did anyone notice that the Supreme Court refused to lift a stay of execution for a Death Row inmate because Ohio has so messed up their procedures that they 'can't be trusted' to do them properly?
And on we go...
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Prup, you are on quite the roll. :))
Posted by: nancy | February 12, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Okay, so picking on Mad Michelle is probably too easy, and this is 'old news' -- if something overlooked can be called 'news' -- but it was referenced on today's front page of the Dump Michelle Bachman blog -- which has even produced a book, "The Madness of Michelle Bachmann" -- published by Wiley. The original dates to 2010.
I know there were enough things to throw at her, but it would have been nice if this had been one of them -- and I don't remember it being mentioned, but maybe I missed it.
The Dump Bachmann blog has other good stuff. Quick drive up to outer space and a voice few blimpers will admit is familiar -- in the next post.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 06:27 PM
The Bachmann blog leads us to One W@hite Duck and the following rant. And I can't help hiding the name for a post or two, as a 'pop quiz.' (Okay, niuse over the link and you'll find it.
This was broadcast -- over satellite radio, of course:
Some of you might admit you recognize the style. But if you know, guess, or cheat, you have to admit he probably has more influence than the entire blimp put together -- especially among just those people the blimp considers not worth noticing. Maybe even more than Rush.
Btw, the whole segment runs over 12 minutes, and I haven't listened to it all, but its available at the link.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 06:36 PM
As you might expect, Florida Politics is filled with goodies -- it'a 'important' enough even blimp riders might have heard of it. (And there's also a shout-out to an old friend and ex-member of Cog on the front page.) I could go down the list, including Scott and Rubio at CPAC and a lot of redistricting news -- a big story everywhere but on the blimp -- and stories about Florida's attemot to privatize Medicaid.
You can check them out yourself, I'll just quote -- at length -- one 'infrastructure' story from one of those 'ecch, horrible paper things that get ink all over your hands'. the Miami Herald. (This is also an 'education story -- and there are plenty of others on the various blogs I've mentioned, but I've kept away from them because I'd love -- sometime -- to get uinto a specific extended colloquy on that.):
The story goes on for four pages, btw, with a ful history of how things got that way.
Okay, supper break -- and Florida is a great place to take it if you can't be in Brooklyn. We'll meet at the bus later for a few stops, but the tour may stretch over until tomorrow -- I have to shut the engine off early for a doctor's appointment (fasting, grrrrrrr!) early tomorrow, and it may take a while to get my time straightened out before the catbox (Oh, Happy Day!)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 06:59 PM
Prup, there has been a lot of litigation nationwide about lethal injection procedures over the last several years. The district court found that Ohio hadn't complied (during the last execution -- too bad for that guy) with procedures previously ordered. The circuit court did not disturb the stay of execution, nor did SCOTUS feel the need to wade on in -- given that there was recent and documented proof that Ohio wasn't following rules.
Somehow, this stuff doesn't get very much attention in the press. The real story is that Ohio -- like other states -- just wants to do the killin' and not follow the rules. It is really no story that SCOTUS doesn't want to take this case up, on accounta things are messy right now.
The Death Penalty Information Center is a good source for information of all kinds about the death penalty. Here is a page on lethal injection news and controversies. It is not entirely complete, but you'll see that Ohio is not the only state with problems, and that the controversies extend to how states are obtaining their drugs -- which include shady methods. The US manufacturer of one drug commonly used stopped production; some European firms have said they don't want their stuff used for executions. There are other issues, lots of them, with lethal injection.
Posted by: Anonymous Lawyer | February 12, 2012 at 07:10 PM
That's the point behind all of this series of stories. The stories do make it into the press -- the local press. But our 'blimp riders' are far too pristine in their interests to read anything in a newspaper other than WaPo, the NYT and a handful of others -- or rags like the NYPo or WaTi that are used as targets.
In fact, one point might be encapsulated in your 'like other states.' The blimp-riders claim that it is their own long and important experience, their great wisdom, acknowledged by all their peers (that agree with them in general), and mostly because of their broad, national focus that they can spot patterns and trends that we here on the ground miss.
Their case might be a little better if they ever actually spotted any -- but the record is pretty slim, if it isn't 180 degrees wrong. They love to focus on a particularly egregious example of Republican action and discuss it to death. But, oh, wouldn't even the Scott Walker story have been so much better if they had tied his actions in with the other governors who were doing the same thing, make it about a policy, a true trend.
Another example. There have been a few stories about Rick Scott's demands that welfare recipients be drug-tested, and there are even hints that other states might be contemplating the same thing. It took Rachel Maddow to link 11 stories -- referring to at least 7 different states -- plus Romney's support -- in one place. (But Rachel is a real journalist, which makes the difference.)
Another one that could use 'trend spotting' is prison privatization, which will come up once the bus gets moving again.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 12, 2012 at 07:50 PM
g4s.us and cca.com for info on two of the largest prison contractors. They'he been privatizing prisons in this country for at least 30 years.
Also Rachel M, like most radio/Tv journalists with their own shoes, has a staff of bright young researchers and, probably,writers.
Maybe I missed your point prup?
Posted by: paula b | February 12, 2012 at 08:12 PM
Prup, ya gotta understand that some of us out here in the sticks just don't move as fast as you do.
I feel I can't keep very good time with this thread.
Points all taken though. Thanks. ;-)
Posted by: nancy | February 12, 2012 at 09:46 PM
prup -- you keep referring to "blimps" and "blimp riders," and i have no idea what you mean. probably you explained this someplace, but -- my friend, your posts are long and frequent. just keep the explanation short, OK? paperback dictionary, not master's thesis.
Posted by: kathy a. | February 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM
kathy -- Jan 10 comment thread. Prup, and the 'blimp' reference -- a metaphor I very much like. Works for me anyway.
Back to Downton for the rest of the evening!
Posted by: nancy | February 12, 2012 at 11:30 PM
And, insted of you searching, let me explain it. (Btw, the 'bus trip' was delayed, the driver was needed by The Boss -- Em, not Bruce. More tomorrow, and hopefully I can squeeze in one point tonight.)
It started, first, with my arguing that the blog pundits were forming their own equivalent of 'The Village.' Then I used the simile that both groups were 'like sports broadcasters trying to broadcast a whole season from the Goodyear Blimp -- claiming they saw patterns and structures invisible from the ground, but losing all the fine details and never seeing the players' faces.'
Then I just kept expanding the metaphor, putting the political pros -- sources as well as their most appreciative audience except fcor each other -- on the blimp with the Old Village "Brandy sniffers' and the New 'rye drinkers'. The rest is just riding the metaphor and expanding it. (Thus the 'ground hugger' blogs are the kind that go directly to the source of the story, usually state or area blogs -- Dave Neiwert is the prime exception among national writers, though Dave Weigel also qualifies. The blimp riders - who share the motto, "It's not news until we SAY it's news" -- only notice a story if it makes the big papers or tv, or if they have a special reason for catching it. They'd never actually read a print edition, or even an online edition of a paper without the proper prestige.)
And my problem is that too many of us in the general blogosphere take their cues from the blimp, not just on 'important stories' but on the attitudes and perceptions about politics that they so graciously share with us, usually revealing those insights by discussing another rider's take on the story, so much more interesting than the mere facts.
Even that would be annoying, only the pros are up there too, wiith the usual symbiotic source/writer relationship -- and they are only slightly less convinced of the colective sagacity, wisdom, and perceptiveness of the riders than are the riders themselves. Clear now, without a dissertation?
Okay, so a couple of points. First a mior point. If you didn't click through or cheat, the profane pro-SSM rant was by Howard Stern -- who affects more people whether you like him or not -- I can't listen to him -- than the whole blimp together.
And my point on the stories is not the individual stops themselves, but the common threads that tie them together. First of all, the one ten-letter word that is key to all of them, that nastiest one of all, "Republican." All of these represent actions by elected Republicans.
The second is that in all cases these were not isolated incidents but examples of actions carried on in state after state. They can be used as examples of Republican priorities and patterns of actions. Therefore they could be shaped and worked into weapons against any Republican Candidate above City Councilman.
Third is that the shaping, as with Komen, is what the blogs do best. If enough people get together, they'll find piles of information that one or two people had and either 'assumed were common knowledge' or didn't think were important.
Fourth they are stories the blimp either never picked up on, or saw as an isolated incident, maybe -- for our side -- a weapon against a particular Republican, not Republicans as a whole. Because of that,
Fifth, they are unlikely to be seen as such by the pros who listen attentively to the blimp. or friendly or 'centrist' blimp riders, and thus we lost the opportunity unless we act on our own.
Even though I may have made my point, there are a few more states to check in on tomorrow, with a grand finale that starts in Missouri.
Thanx for putting up with this, I hope it makes my point -- several of my points, clearer.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 13, 2012 at 01:27 AM
I miss Rick Perry. He had a pristine dumbness that none of the others could come close to matching. Just one last story we somehow missed:
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 13, 2012 at 01:33 AM
I'm not up to continuing the 'bus trip' now -- maybe later if a headache goes away. But just one bit of news from Steve Benen's noon round-up should demonstrate why we can't count on the Democratic Party to start moving to the Left. Rep. Mike McIntyre of NC announced that despite the pleadings of party officials, he'd remain in the House, rather than run for Governor.
If the name seems vaguely familiar, you probably have done the same as I have, and glanced at party breakdowns on House votes. If a vote had one, two, or three Democrats lining up with the Republicans, against the rest of the Democrats, one of them would be Mike McIntyre. He opposed repeal of DADT, opposed the ACA and has both called for its repeal and a 'clean slate' and voted with the Republicans to repeal it, opposed the bank bailout, supports tobacco subsidies, was one of 5 Democrats to vote for "Cut, Cap and Balance" and was a co-sponsor of the 'forcible rape' only exception for abortion.
Yes. the absolutely perfect person to head a state ticket in a State Obama wants to win.
The words "Mike McIntyre for Governor' should be the last remembered words in a Progressive's nightmare, with the alarm ringing just in time. They should NOT be a serious suggestion by any Democratic ofdficial.
But even more, is there so little coordination between the national and state parties that this slipped by unnoticed? Or were the Obama people just so ignorant that they let this go, having no idea who McIntyre was and looking at vote totals only -- and he didn't do all that well in 2010, though he was a rare blue dog that survived? Or are there people around Obama who actually thought this was a good idea?
If anyone else has an explanation, please give it, because I can't think f an alterbate, and the implications of each of the three I mentioned scare the hell out of me.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 13, 2012 at 05:08 PM
Meanwhile, as basically irrelevant as the Clown Car is, it still is hilarious to watch. Who could possibly have predicted that Romney would be so efficient in turning off people that the Party would make even Little Ricky the favorite over him? (Well, there was that one weird hermit from Brooklyn, but even he couldn't completely believe it.)
But that's not the delightful news of the day. According to Steve Benen, Romney's recent win in the Straw Poll at CPAC was 'bought, not earned.' Apparently he bought memberships for his supporters, bussed in college students, and in other ways insured his win -- and won't he have gained points with the CPAC crowd once this came out?
Seriously, can anyone assure me that I did not fall asleep a couple of years ago, when I first started watching the screwball comedies of the 30s, and everything I think I've watched has been a movie-inspired dream?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 13, 2012 at 05:38 PM
Well, maybe there's a topper to the Romney story. After all, Romney just used money, Ron Paul's little gamesmanship did take brains -- ethics, no, but brains, yes. Those caucuses that Santorum won? Well, the Paulistas apparemtly said something like the following:
Paulistas are insane, yes, but insane and stupid ain't the same.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Prup - you are indeed on a roll, but pardon me for asking is there a deep low pressure system hoverying over Brooklyn?
It is all well and good to enumerate the many egregious transgressions of republicans and those who collaborate with them for political gain, and realistically, it would not be a bad idea to compile them all in a sequentially oriented database. But if you want to have any thing close to real time reaction to these things, it would require a competent staff of fairly dedicated individuals who were assigned say to defined regions.
The bottom line in all of this it seems to me is that money translates directly into power when it can be applied in sufficient quantities. Play with the numbers a bit. People like the Koch brothers can hand millions in revenue to media giants in the form of buying astroturf adverts. But consider for just a moment that such big buys might also come with a concealed rider to the effect that (per FAUX news) nothing positive or factual will ever be reported concerning the negative impacts of building the XL pipeline.
Anyway, I just have to ask you prup, what do you propose to do about this mess we are in? I think that is a more important conversation than just describing it.
Posted by: KN | February 14, 2012 at 02:21 AM
KN: I thank you. I have been, in the whole long series of posts going back over a month, been trying to answer just that question. I do, very much, have an answer, and I happen to think it both stands a good chance of working -- and that it, or something similar, may be the only thing that does.
Obviously, at this time of night, I can hardly go into detail -- I will do far too much of that tomorrow -- but I can make a couple of preliminary points.
First, the reason for the string of stories was not that these were more 'Republican Horror Tales.' It is that these were stories that the blimp riders -- and those of us who turn towards them -- missed, ignored, or, at best, discussed as an isolated incident without the pattern that I demonstrated.
More, they were stories we could have and should have run with, shaping them, directing them, adding parts to them, and making them so powerful that they couldn't be ignored by the blimp, or even by the tv news shows and channels. We actually demonstrated this with the Komen story. We dropped it too soon, and we missed some opportunities, but without the work the blogosphere did on it, it would have remained a 'battle between two women's organizations' and a 'she said, she said' false equivalence. And that would have meant the story would have given the Republicans an opportunity to make it about PP and the share of their work that involves abortions -- and the Komen angle would have disappeared.
But Komen was just a reminder of the power the blogosphere can have -- power I watched in 2006 and 2008, power that swung several close races our way, and power that showed the corruption and lies behind the 'cheerful airhead' Palin image. And i insist we can begin to have it again -- more (talk about delusions of grandeur, Prup) that we have the power to begin 'reclaiming the discourse' from the Republicans -- who have controlled it since about 1974.
And one last point before I have to give up and shut up. Reread the post I made on Mike McIntire @ 5:08. McIntire is not Evan Bayh, or Ben nelson, or Blanche Lincoln, or even Joe Manchin, unreliable, very conservative Democrats who, while they eventually go along with the party, demand a price for it and move the plan rightward.
No, McIntire is a true Tea Party Republican in all but Party Registration. He opposed DADT repeal. He opposed the ACA, promised to abolish it, and voted with the Republicans to repeal it in its entirety. He's an extreme pregnancy forcer, opposed the bank bailout, and supports higher tobacco subsidies. Just take a minute and imagine him heading the State ticket when Obama headed the Federal one. Now imagine what that would do to every down-ballot candidate from State Legislature up, trying to thread the needle, or running from one or the other. Then think about the turnout.
But again, the story is not the event, but what it says specifically about the White House. Are they so weak they couldn'y block this disastrously bad action? Are they so ignorant and detached they didn't know enough about McIntire? Or did they actually think that urging him to run for Governor -- and he probably would have won the nomination given no strong Democrats have yet entered the race -- was a good idea
Again, I don;t have a better solution, and hope you have one that's even credible. But I still insist that this is yet another reason why we cannot argue, as Sir Charles did, that 'the best way to assure strong Progressive gains in Congress is to isure that Obama wins by as big a margin as possible.' (And that's even without figuring in the possibility that too strong a landslide, visible too early -- as I expect we will have -- might actually depress turnout.)
Okay, repetitious, but they help as a foundation, Tomorrow I'll say just what i propose to do -- or to encourage, help plan, and work with people to do -- about this mess.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 14, 2012 at 04:58 AM
I will be finishing this -- but not until early evening at the earliest -- it may take into tomorrow. I'll just give one little thing we could do, which wouldn't cost us a thing, and which we could suggest our friends try as well. Look at the websites of your local papers and find any discussions of immigration, particulaly a very recent one, and simply add a comment reminding people that 'illegal immigrant' need not equal 'Hispanic" any more than "Hispanic" implies illegal immigrant -- or descendant of one, like the real haters like to imply. There are 'illegals' from many countries -- be sure to mention Ireland -- and many Hispanics -- especially in the West, come from families who have remained in place while the country changed underneath them. And that, in the East, Puerto Ricans aren't 'immigrants' at all but already citizens.
That's the sort of little tactic that can begin to turn the discourse ever so slightly in our direction, just by shaking up people's unthinking 'certainties.'
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 14, 2012 at 01:48 PM
Take your time from my point of view. Thanks for addressing my questions though, I am genuinely intrigued.
First my ulterior motive. I should be able to get out of here in the next few months and for various reasons am considering what I might do in the US that is politically interesting and constructive since we seem to be so much in need of people taking government back from corporations and their wholly owned legislators, executives and jurists. Not that I am looking for a job, I am looking for something to do that will have an effect.
Second, we have a powerfull tool at our beck and call if we want to use it and you are using a part of it right now. Blogs are interesting things, I don't read more than a handful. That handful has been sifted out of a truckload. There are other devices available using the same tool, that is the definition of general purpose computers. My database suggestion was actually quite serious but it would be a serious undertaking that would require dedicated and skilled people. But it could certainly be done relatively cheaply, open source software is quite as good if not better than most commercial software. I won't go into any more details but there are many many ways the networking of like minded people with useful facilities can make an enormous difference.
In many respects I think information is much more powerful than mere money.
Please, if you post your next reply elsewhere from this thread leave a short message here pointing to it.
Cheers,
Posted by: KN | February 14, 2012 at 10:40 PM
KN: I'll be coming back here, but I posted one example of the sort of thing I mean in my post tonight @ 3:29 in the Tuesday Open Thread. It's less detailed a 'campaign' than the others I'll be describing, but it will give you the idea -- once you get through the opening to where I begin discussing it. The opening is more 'theory' about why I believe we have to make our voice heard -- again, as we did in both 2006 and 2008 and failed to do in 2010.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 03:36 AM
[TP's bitching agin 2 parts, unwillingly]
Okay, yet more preliminary remarks -- I'll try and make them quick, and then the detailed campaigns.
First, while the list of Republian 'sins' could stretch longer than my average post without even explaining them, too unfocused an attack will lose impact. I suggest that we take as our main underlying theme Republican Bigotry. It is a thread that can tie together any number of Republican positions, not just homophobia, anti-Hispanic immigration, anti-Muslim actions, but it could stretch to include some of the more egregious anti-Union actions (the State Employees Unions are also more 'minority' than the populace as a whole in my limited experience and less limited reading) and, cautiously and without overstatement, the neo-Puritanism, anti-contraception and some -- but not all -- of the pregnancy-forcing.
(Jumping off-track slightly, while some of these campaigns can be used in the abortion issue, the most powerful weapon we could produce there breaks my 'print-first' rule. It would be a DVD that simply includes the testimonies -- and questioning -- of a dozen women who chose to have abortions, why they so chose, and why they continue to know they made the right choice. And if we compile such a documentary -- as I say as a general rule -- 'drop the pity party.' We want to argue that abortion is a right every woman has and should have, not that it is something that is bestowed upon women whose pregnancy 'was not their fault' only. So make it emotional, make it personal, make sure that people who see it no longer can talk as if 'having an abortion' was a casual decision women make for convenience -- but avoid as much as possible the 'she couldn't help it' argument. If you need to show the effect of rape on a woman -- make it a marital rape. If you use 'she didn't use contraception' use it only if you can include the fact that the reason she didn't was not ignorance, but Republican/religious attempts to limit access.)
Back on the main thread. "Bigotry" is the ideal topic to concentrate on for any number of reasons.
It is audacious and thus will get attention faster. Most people probably realize on some level that the Republican party has a lot of bigots attached, but are used to this being 'swept under the rug' -- and they may feel that these Republicans' bigotry is a 'bug' when it is really a 'feature.' Daring to attack them on this will be news -- and none of these campaigns will succeed if they don't 'make news.'
It is an attack on an 'undefended flank.' Republicans have been used to having their bigotry ignored for so long that they simply are unprepared to defend it. They'll gather their forces, but probably too late.
It is simple. You don't have to teach people the basics of Keynesian economics, or the intricasies of state budgeting for them to understand it.
It is powerful. Despite the Republican myth -- that the Democratic leadership has gulped off the spoons they have fed it to us with -- that all Americans outside of the 'big liberal cities' and outside of specific 'ghettoes' hate all minorities -- this simply isn't true. (Again, the television evidence alone proves this. People have become used to seeing minorities, blacks, women, Muslims, gays, in all sorts of roles, and have 'gotten used' to them. Shows with gay characters as central to the show -- like MODERN FAMILY and GLEE -- are not watched in the cities but all over and are both the most popular scripted shows on their networks. And all sors of mixed-race couples are common enough they no longer even get noticed. (Even gay mixed-race couples are common. I don't recall if we've seen Chrissie, the lover of the lesbian FBI agent on WHITE COLLAR -- who just proposed and I expect the questions about the wedding will be an interesting 'arc' -- but the name implies 'white' and her lover is Hispanic.)
But even more, it is a simple fact that even bigots are used to a 'veiled' bigotry and are repulsed by it when it is shown naked. (Even at CPAC, there were protests at a panel led by someone with a neo-Nazi background -- protests that even Kurt Kobach and Michelle Malkin joined.) As i stated, a great many Bostonians who would later support Louise Day Hicks were repulsed by Bull Connor and some, I'm sure, even joined the marches of Dr. King. (Then "NIMBY" set in.)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 12:10 PM
[Part 2]
They are uniting. There is a cultural homophobia in Hispanic culture -- coming from both religion and the 'macho' idea. Many middle class gays, I'm sure, share the anti-Hispanic "anti-immigrant" bias of their straight neighbors. There is probably about the same anti-Muslim bias in both groups as there is in the populace at large. These groups might not go out of their way to fight for the other groups on their own. But if they can all be shown to be targets of bigotry (not 'victims of...) they can come together -- as blacks and Jews did during the 50s and 60s.
So a few last 'general rules,' then on to the first few 'campaigns.'
E-fucking-nough with the bullpen session. Get onto the mound, Prup, and let them swing at your pitches.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 12:11 PM
[another split -- I love TP]
Let's start big, with the campaign that is the biggest and most elaborate i expect to suggest. The others require minimal expense and involvement, this is much more expensive -- though because it uses print, less so than any other medium for targeted 'viewings' -- and requires a minimum of action from many of us. (Usually nothing more than going into a business that is minority-targeted or owned and asking the owner if he or she would mind displaying a pamphlet and leaving a number of them 'on the counter' for the customers to see. Make it plain that the first request is tentative, and final approval isn't expected until the owner actually sees the pamphlet -- if you are conducting preliminary research before the pamphlet is available. Of course, other help would be appreciated, like offering to deliver some stacks of pamphlets yourself -- and having extras for when the owners want more. And once whatever organization is set up to do this, contributions will be helpful.)
[I repeat that if this goes ahead, i will only be involved in a minor capacity. I don't have the skills or the background to be anything more than the 'guy who came up with the idea' or someone doing data research for the pamphlets. Somebody else has to handle Admin, Finance, contacts, and setting up a website to work with the pamphlets.]
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 01:23 PM
[Part 2]
(Two points that arose from the previous discussion of this idea. Someone (kathy? Nancy?) argued that the 'ashamed' was a turn-off. I don't agree but am not wedded to it. If you can make the point more gently, okay, but I think the emphasis works and will argue for it. And no one will be expected to 'stand in parking lots handing out pamphlets' -- except maybe a couple of people at parades circulating through the watchers. Mostly these wil be distributed as i said, though if anyone has ideas that would get them into the general populace's hands -- hosting neighborhood events like barecues and card parties -- and are willing they will be praised and encouraged.)
Okay, the pamphlets should be 8 to 12 pages long. They can look slick and professional or casual -- like they 'just came off the computer,' white paper and stapled or the like. (I can see arguments for both, maybe we'll use both for different audiences.)
The front page is
Inside Front Cover:
"This pamphlet consists of nothing but quotes from various official Republican sources, state and national platforms, officeholders, Presidential candidates, state chairmen, national Republican organizations -- except for two pages of quotes from the Conservative Political Action Conference of this spring and from various radio personalities who are looked on as unofficially speaking for the Republican point of view.
[The next paragraph is a summary of what's inside, I'll give a sample from a gay-themed pamphlet.]
The Republican Party has, consistently, called for a return to DADT -- or a return to a total ban on gays in the military, has challenged the right of gays to adopt children, have called for a Definition of Marriage Amendment that would prohibit SSH, and have compared us to polygamists, pedophiles, bestialists, and others. They have claimed we 'could be cured' or even that gayness is something we should seek to be 'cured of' instead of a natural and cherished part of who we are.
Some have even called for the overturn of Lawrence and the reciminalization of gay sex, have called for our deportation and for the borders to be sealed against us.
Now not all Republican voters share these beliefs. Some of you who are reading this may be Republicans yourself -- who have viewed the homophobic statements you've heard from fellow party members and dismissed them as aberrations. And there are even Republican officeholders who disagree -- though almost none who have 'gone public' on any topic except opposing gay-bashing and bullying -- subjects which can shock the consciences of even people otherwise homophobic. But, as you will see, the official party line is homophobia, hidden or overt.
(for all pamphlets)
For further information -- and videos and audio where possible so that you can see for yourself that these quotes were not taken out of context -- see our website at...
The rest of the pamphlet, except for an inside back cover that should be blank, or with a symbolic drawing (for gays, maybe an elephant with a lavender 'circle-slash') shall consist of the quotes mentioned. They should be divided, more or less standardly, as follows.
The first page should be quotes from state platforms and the National Republican Platform of 2008 -- with a new addition planned to include 'goodies' that are bound to be put in this year's party platform.
Next would be quotes from the various Presidential candidates of his year, including the major ones that dropped out. (Herman Cain yes, Donald Trump, no)
Then statements from Congresspersons. Then from Governors and state legislature.
The next two should be listings of bills in the Congress -- then bills in state legislatures.
Then two pages of quotes from the likes of Limbaugh, Robertson, Buchanan, and particularly Brian Fischer -- who will be a constant target in several campaigns and the center of one.
Then the inside back cover.
The back should read -- in my opinion, see above.
"Aren't you ashamed you even considered voting Republican?"
(And if your Representatives don't agree with these views, first ask yourself, then ask them, why they stay in a party that does.)
************************************************
That's it. Yes, a little expensive, but the sort of thing that will have results on its own. But most of all, it will 'make news' and we can and should make sure the focus stays on Republican bigotry and does not become a 'story about us.'
I could add a few things, like making sure certain people are alerted so they can write stories about it that we can expect to be favorable. (Steve! Hey, Steve! Rachel! Roy Edroso! Eyes up, and 'watch this space.')
But that's basically campaign one. The others are a little simpler.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 01:24 PM
More later, but after a nap and some time with Em and housework.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 01:25 PM
One more -- at least -- before the latenight.
This one doesn't take any money at all for the initial stage, and a relatively tiny one for the follow-ups (and in some cases the people involved will be able and, hopefully, willing to bear the brunt of the expenses).
What it takes is between six and twelve people with certain characteristics:
They must have personal moral -- and sadly, in some cases physical -- courage,
They must be members of a minority group such as gays, Muslims, or Hispanics,
They must be constituents of a Representative who has made his or her reputation attacking that group.[*]
(It also helps if they have a few friends willing to accompany them -- just in case. Ideally some of the friends would be members of the group, others would not be but would be 'supporters.')
Okay, imagine the picture -- happening six or a dozen times throughout the country. A Representative comes home for a district meeting, and a member of the hated minority group -- let's use gays -- stands up and says, simply, quietly, politely, and in as close to these words as possible, "Representative X, I am a constituent of yours. I also am gay. You have made many statements about me and about people like me, some of whom are also your constituents. I would like to ask you if you are willing to make them to my face, and to the faces of my friends, and give us a chance to respond."
Now the first one or two will gbe shut up and hustled out and probably booed down -- and someone there would get this on camera. That alone would be enough to make it a small news story, but when it keeps happening that entire week -- with the people we've prepped and, ideally with other people emboldened to act the same way on their own -- we can make this into a story. Again, as always, we have to do our best to make sure the story remains focused on the thing being protested, Republican bigotry, and not on the protestors or protests themselves. And our protestors should be sure to make sure, if they are the subject of interviews, to stress that their 'target' is not unique, but typical of the bigotry permeating the Republican party.
(And we will, of course, be alerting our media friends about this, to watch for it, and hopefully they will accept our advice on how to cover it.)
For some of the protestors, the one event is enough, but for others -- as many as are willing to further risk reprisals -- I would hope for a follow-up. This would be for the lead questioner to hire a hall for his own 'district meeting,' and to advertise it in the local newspapers -- and by a handbil sent to every registered voer in the District.
In the ad, the events concerning the Congressman would be described, and the questioner's wish to begin a dialogue -- not have a confrontation. Because of that, he will offer the Congressman the main speaking position at the meeting, as long as the Congressman is willing to take questions from a panel of gays -- and while they may not all be from the same District, they should all be from the same state, and at least half not from a large city.
As the announcement also states, the rest of the time will be taken up with the panel answering questions from the audience. "However," and this part is vital "because so many of you will have similar questions, questions we have all been asked many times, a FAQ sheet or pamphlet will be provided to all who attend the meeting, and if a question is asked that has been answered in there, we will -- to give room for further questions -- just refer to the FAQ."
(The obvious purpose of this is to get information into at least some of the attendees' hands, for them to look at at their leisure, which may cause them to question at least some of the myths they have heard and sincerely believe.)
The style of the meeting and the venue should be up to the person holding it -- even if we provide some minor or major financil support. In some cases the meetings could be 'stripped down' a high school auditorium, folding chairs, a desk on stage, nothing more. Others could be elaborate, a decorated hall, some form of exhibition -- I suggest a theme of "I didn't know HE or SHE was gay!" -- and it can include, perhaps should include, both celebrities and political figures, and even a few 'gay villains' included.
(In either case, I'd hope for a chance to present some live music along with the meeting, a band from in-state composed of the minority group, that would play. (Be very careful about appearing to be pandering. If they only play country music in a 'country music' district, they'll have to be damn good or be hooted off the stage by people who know what the best of the field is like. If they only mix country music in with a wide variety of material they can be less good.)
Okay, that's it, except for two points. One is the question of whether, if a person takes part in this sort of event, and receives a positive response, he should -- if deadlines allow -- consider an actual challenge to the Congressman. I don't see that this should be discouraged, but it should not be a main purpose of the event. It should really be a response to the urging of the citizenry.
The second is [*]. The rule about 'being a constituent' should be broken only in one possible situation. Cesar Millan, "the Dog Whisperer' at least allowed Stephen Colbert to use his name as the proposed 'moderator' of the South Carolina debate he offered to hold. But Cesar is also someone who was an illegal immigrant -- and not someone brought here by his parents as a child, but someone who came himself in early adolescence. I have no idea if he is political beyond that (apparently) joking use of his name, but if he were to be, and would agree to appear anywhere to confront an anti-Hispanic Republican -- the rule should be waived.
(If anyone has any connection to someone on the Colbert show, it would be nice to know the circumstances in which he allowed his name to be used, and whether there was a feeling that he might be approachable for something like this. If so, instant big news story.)
That's the main idea, and I stress that for the type pf people who live in these districts, the words 'Say it to My Face" migt have a stronger meaning than to a city-dwelling professional or academic. Unlike the previous campaign, I would argue extremely strongly for keeping just this particular phrasing.
And, if there aren't people willing to do this, I have an alternate. It would be more expensive, more elaborate, and would need plenty of 'news plugging' to have anything like the same impact, but it might work -- again keying off the phrase "Say it to Our Faces."
But that may be for later, or even tomorrow if I choose to return with the third campaign.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 09:36 PM
(This is definitely a second choice and, given the many disastrous failures of similar tours on the right, needs much careful behind-the scenes preparation, including being sure that there will be coverage and trying to increase the audience -- with locals, 'busing people in' would be a disastrous mistake. I'll talk more below.)
The idea doesn't need much elaboration, and should be limited to one issue, homo[hobia being the obvious choice. A group would announce a bus tour -- using the 'say it to our face' slogan and idea. It would annouce it was going to tour the districts of the twenty or ten most homophobic Members of Congress. At each stop a hall would be rented, and the sort of meeting I described above would be held -- again with the Representative offered the Prime Speaking spot. The FAQs would be handed out inside and outside the meeting place -- and the meeting place would be chosen in the most gay-friendly part of the district and, hopefully, in a place where there were some gay organizations -- or even bars -- to provide people both to come out and attend and to serve as panel members.
Again, the first few might be sparsely attended, and we might have to make a strong effort to get coverage, but coverage breeds more curiosity and greater attendance.
And, as always, the discussions with any newspeople should, as much as possible, focus on the topic of Republican homophobia -- and not on the protest or the attendees.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 15, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Sheesh Prup, you are not on a roll, you are on a tear. But I have to admit you are coherent and to the point for the most part.
I can't really address all of this tonight because I have to get up and go to work in a few hours but I will say this, respecting your first installment above after my last message.
Your exposition generated an image. Simplicity works, so you simply couple the image with the thought. A carefully chosen image of any given candidate, accompanied by the single word BIGOT. Then a bit of text below two sentences at most defining why.
We have to also think about why speaking in code, using dog-whistle terms is given a pass. So we should turn that ploy around as well, Elitist Boehner Schills for
His Tar Sands Stocks.
Read verbal behavior by Skinner, you will get what I mean.
Good work overall, I'll try to seriously address the rest of your deluge of words if you give me a chance but I am as a snail to your cheetah like pace.
Posted by: KN | February 16, 2012 at 01:42 AM
Okay, two more and a few minor additions and I may actually shut up for a little while. But first, what was planned as a brief comment has turned into at least a minor rant, so get your fingers on the 'PgDn' button.
KN: Simplicity works, but only if coupled with respect -- which seems to be an odd word to use towards Republicans. But it is the right one for any number of reasons.
Progressivism is, in essence, about 'respect.' We support Mapp, Gideon, and Miranda and believe they were 'rightly decided,' and we support civilian trials with all constitutional rights for Gitmo prisoners, in essence because we believe that even the worst criminals, even terrorists acting against this country, deserve a basic minimum of respect as human beings, that this is why they deserve their rights, and not just because of a Supreme Court decision.
Our insistence on civil rights, on feminism, on LGBTQ rights, are all based on our belief that a person's human dignity, the respect he deserves, should not depend on their ethnicity, gender, orientation, or whatever. Again, 'all humans deserve respect' is the basic tenet of Liberalism.
But our goal in politics is not just to win elections but to get people to share our beliefs. We'd -- I assume -- rather get a Republican to go to the polls and vote Democratic -- because he understands and finally agrees with us -- than merely have him stay home and give us one less vote to 'offset.'
How are we going to be able to convince a Republican to even hear us, if we don't show him at least the same respect we expect him to show to minorities, to even criminals and terrorists?
But there is a much deeper and more important reason for that respect and attempt to understand Republicans. Because -- even here, but so much more at other sites -- we have a habit of talking about Republicans with all the wisdom, sympathy, understanding, and accuracy that Jonah Goldberg displays when talking about us. (I mean "Republican voters' -- the people they vote for deserve even more scorn than we give them.)
I know that hurts, but it is too often true, and it makes it impossible for us to actually change minds -- again, what it is politics is supposed to do. These people (for the most part -- there are exceptions, but they are among those we need not bother to reach and maybe prefer to be on the other side) are not greedy, mean, ugly bastards, delighting in other peoples' misery. They aren't selfish sons of bitches grabbing what they can for themselves and chortling that there is nothing left for the others. They aren't vicious bigots hating anyone unlike themselves. They aren't some new genetic sport, humans without the gene that supplies compassion -- were there to be such a thing.
They are, in fact, basically us, less intelligent certainly than this group is, maybe, overall, less intelligent than Liberals as a whole, but also, simply and surprisingly, unluckier. They didn't grow up, many of them, in households that treated politics as important, as vital to the way the world we live in looks like. Many of them probably grew up in houses where politics was treated as trivial and/or dirty and not worth spending time on.
And most of them, I'd guess, grew up in relatively bookless homes, certainly homes without serious non-fiction for them to stumble across. Their schools taught them that 'there's only one right answer and it is in the textbook' -- and rewarded the ones who were best at feeding back what they were told in their own words. They never even considered -- or were encouraged to think of -- doing independent research -- meaning taking another book out of the public library on the same subject and compring the different slants.
And 'critical thinking' is learned, not innate -- and they were never taught it. More, if they were brought up in a conservative religious household they were discouraged from learning it -- because it leads to doubts which lead to Hell.
(And many of them were fans of THE X-FILES and its many imitators and predecessors, and have learned a tendency to think 'government agency' = 'nest of evil conspirators.' We blame Reagan and Norquist, and justly, but Chris Carter gets a good part of the blame for their closed minds that reject the possibility of government as a positive force.)
And we always act as if these are the successful, the comfortable -- but they aren't. (In fact, Sir Charles, as representative of that group, is not as exceptional as he and we might like to think. The comfortable -- as opposed to the rich, the near rich, and the people whose only goal is to become rich -- are frequently educated professionals or academics, or even businessmen, who are more likely to be Progressive than the average American. They are comfortable with their lives, accept -- and expect to be able to handle -- the struggles that come up, and even if they are angry at the political situation, they know enough to be angry for the right reasons. Not a majority of them, perhaps, but more than the population as a whole.)
But -- I've seen many studies that bear this out -- the Republicans, particularly the 'crazy conservatives' are the uncomfortable, the unsatisfied, the 'stalled out,' the underachievers, and because of their lack of background -- whatever their intelligence level -- they don't understand why they feel that way, why the world treats them that way when, as good men and women (more or less) they deserve rewards now. (And while many of them mouth the words, few of them really, in their hearts, believe in 'pie in the sky when you die.' But they may tithe and go to church anyway 'just in case and because it can't hurt.')
Let me touch on an important sidetrack, the question of their racism. Because I think it is more complex than we tend to treat it as. (This is also one reason why I believe that pointing out the institutional racism of the Republican Party will shake up Republicans we -- with good reason -- might also call racists.)
We easily confuse hidden resentments and presuppositions with active racism. These people do have all sorts of resentments, some of which come out in racial terms, yet, for many of them (and the only ones worth bothering with), their denial that they are racists is perfectly sincere, because they aren't self-analytical enough to see themselves, and because they are acting on false information.
To make my point, imagine that Joe Smith starts a rant about welfare recipients getting undeserved luxury paid for by his tax dollars. Then imagine two paragraphs later, he says something that shows he thinks that almost all welfare recipients are black. Our usual response is to assume he's really a racist, and the welfare rant was a way of expressing that in a 'safe' way. We know how little people get on welfare -- or should, though I wonder if anyone understands it who has never cashed a welfare check. And we know that more welfare recipients are white than black.
But Joe Smith doesn't know what we know. He is being as honest as he is wrong about both comments. He really doesn't believe he is racist, because he doesn't have the facts, and because he treats blacks in his own circle, office, or neighborhood no differently -- he thinks -- than he does whites. He doesn't even see that his willingness to be 'understanding' about a white family's emergency need for welfare and his blindness that a black family could be 'in the same boat' is itself a demonstration of a hidden racism.
We talk about 'dog whistles' but that's not what he gets from his politicians. They are not saying 'wink, wink, nudge, nudge, I'm a racist just like you.' Rather they are using symbols that will activate Joe's buried racism without him even realizing it.
Okay, so, since Joe proved so handy, let's drag him along as our average Republican. Again, he's moderately unsuccessful, or even if he is successful, feels it takes so much out of him he can't enjoy his success or his other pleasures. He's angry, suspicious of the government in general. He comes from a non-political family in that they probably didn't discuss politics, and treated it as at best an annoying necessity and diversion -- but they probably voted, and voted Republican, either for generations or because they became Republican during the 70s.
So he grew up wit the idea that 'voting Republican was the right thing to do.' (And there's a good possibility that the Republicans his parents voted for were moderates, or, if conservatives, still well to the left of the current Party.)
Okay, when we first see Joe he's as confused as he is resentful. This is NOT the way his life was supposed to go. He's got a lot of reasons for thinking this; "God is supposed to reward believers and I'm one, i guess" to "I went into this so I wouldn't end up like my Daddy, cursing the weight of getting through every day. But even though I changed jobs, changed collars from blue to white, I hear myself sounding just like him."
Then it happens. Maybe he hears a new preacher, live or on radio, with a political sermon, maybe the carpool driver insists on putting Rush or Beck on, maybe he just listens too hard to a political speech or to FOX. and he hears it, the 'real explanation' for why the world is so fucked up.
Now we know all about Rush and Glenn and FOX. We know about political preachers. We know the turth they cover with lies, we have the ability to think critically and see the false facts and the fallacious reasoning behind what he is hearing. We've watched Colbert and Stewart skewer them, we read blogs, and we start out with a solid grounding in the facts. But we forget that he doesn't have any of that.
There's another important difference, a psychological one. Most, I'd say all, of us here, and most Progressives -- I wouldn't say all -- are used to questioning and doubting authority figures. Oh, we still rely on them more than we may realize. Thus if Sir Charles, or Big Bad Wolf, or kathy a. says something about law, we tend to give it considerable weight. Still, if we have reason to believe that they are in error, we have no qualms about saying so, or asking them to give some back-up to their statement. (And they understand this and welcome it on some level, even if sometimes we can be annoying about it.)
But Joe's different. He probably grew up in a strict family, the sort that says 'Whaddya mean why do i say it, why should you believe it? Because I'm your father, that's why.' And many of the Joes grew up in a conservative Christian environment, where 'faith' was the key to salvation, and where, therefore, 'doubt' was dangerous, and potentially literally damning.
(One way in which Catholics have more wisdom than Protestants of this type is that they accept doubt as natural, even inevitable. Doubt should be -- to a good Catholic -- a spur towards finding out more, so that the doubts can be resolved -- and the Catholic has faith that the doubts will be resolved in favor of the Church in general, even if the doubter still remains skeptical about -- say -- contraception.)
But for Joe, doubts are something to be denied, even to himself, to be repressed, to fight against by prayer, not facts. To a great extent they are similar in nature to a sudden discovery by a Joe that he can be sexually attracted to a man -- and for many Joes, it is equally as serious (because 'all sin is an offense against an infinite god, thus all sins are infinite, thus all sins are equal.')
It is possible for Joe to overcome this, with considerable difficulty, unless he's fallen into one trap, the 'conspiracy trap.' This is the simple implantation of the idea that 'if anybody tells you different, that just shows they are part of the group against you.' If he gets that, you can give up on reaching him. (You still might argue with him, hoping that your arguments would convince a bystander, a lurker, or even simply show them how silly Joe's beliefs were and how crazy his conspiracy trap had made him.)
It's possible to break through the walls and get to Joe, to get him to unlearn his 'certainties.' But it isn't easy. I like to think my campaigns stand a good chance, but we better come up with something.
By we, I mean the blogosphere, because we can't expect the rest of the power centers in the Party to be of much help. The White House has shown slightly less determination to avoid conflicts -- but if Obama knows he's a sure hing and he will if he doesn't now -- will he see any benefit in conflict? (Will he even see himself as a Democrat, or will he, yet again, run away from his party and use his name only on the posters?)
The DNC isn't any better. Okay, it was the state officials that urged McIntire to run for Governor, but is the DNC helpless to keep them from doing something this dumb and party-wrecking? Are they still enamored of the idea of running crypto-Republicans in general -- even if their Republicanism is of the old-fashioned type? Are they still convinced that embracing liberals, or forthrightly embracing the principals of liberals, or even attacking the Republican Party as a whole are mistakes? Is there the slightest bit of evidence they have remembered how well the 50-state strategy worked, and how disastrously its replacement functioned?
And the blimp riders will continue to see the Presidency as the Main Event, noticing only the freak show part of the Congressional 'Side Show.'
Okay, I ran out of steam, physically and mentally, about an hour ago, and have been forcing myself through this and the catbox simultaneously. I know I lost coherence a bit ago here -- I only hope some of my points got through before I drowned in my own verbiage.
Tomorrow I'll get those other campaigns up, and finally give you a break.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 17, 2012 at 03:26 AM
Well, technically this is starting 'tomorrow' *blush*
Anyway
Actually there are several other possible targets, but none fits the considerations as perfectly. We are looking for a radio (or tv) host, who has a large number of guests including public officials -- well over 90% of whom are Republicans -- who 'presents' them rather than 'confronts' them. He must make statements that go beyond the level of hate speech that would be expected from a Rush or even a Beck, and not be the sort who will immediately have an army of defenders -- like a Pat Robertson. (Ideally he will be someone who has escaped the vision of the blimp-riders, so none of them have statements of support they might have to disavow.
Fischer -- the host of the American Family Association's daily radio program -- is perfect. His statement5s are so extreme -- on so many different subjects -- that he is considered single-handedly responsible for getting the AFA formally designated a 'hate group' by the SPLC. He's rarely been the subject of any columns or posts from the blimp. And he seems capable of getting any Republican he wants as a guest -- to quote Kyle Mantyla of RWW:
So, here's what we should do.
I have written to RWW to see if they have a list of every Republican officeholder that has appeared on the show. Okay, this takes a bit of money, because I want ads -- large ones, at least an eigth page for tabloids, equivalent for bedsheets -- running for five weekdays and then a double-sized one for Sunday. These should run in different parts of the paper on different days, with designs for each of the first five that make it obvious they are related, but separate -- including a small but prominent '1 of 5' '4 of 5' whatever.
They should be signed jointly by an unbrella organization -- main purpose to maintain a web site to give full statements by Fischer, might be the same set up for other campaigns or different that's something I don't know enough to say -- and by an individual who can and will truthfully say he is a constituent of the person being challenged.
They would all be in the same format:
Top line: On [date] Rep. S. was a date on the Bryan Fischer show. He was one of # Senators, Representatives and high state officials who have appeared with Mr. Fscher, of them # were members of the Republican Party.
----------inner border ----------------------------------
Who is Mr. Fischer? Here is just a sample of statements he has made on the same shows where he has welcomed Republican guests:
(followed by one of five groups of statements -- I'll put them together -- that will rotate through the different ads.)
This is just a sample of Mr. Fischer's statements. To see more, and to confirm that these were not taken out of context, please go to our website.
[This section should take us down to the bottom third of the text section of the ad.]
----------inner border-------------------------------
Much larger letters, possibly even in script:
Rep. X, do you really believe that you should lend the credibility of your office -- or that your party should continue to welcome the support -- of someone who makes statements like the ones above.
--------------------------------------------------------
The final ad, twice the size, would run prominently on Sunday and would be the same -- except that the statements quoted would be -- and would be noted as -- statements made on the same day the person appeared -- and, given Fischer, there will always be enough material.
That's it, simple, back it up by reprinting the ad as handbills, flyers, and get it out anywhere you can.
And make sure both the overall campaign gets nationwide publicity, and that any target who tries to respond gets his own reply publicized -- and proven flimsy.
(There's one more of these, hopefully tomorrow)
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | February 18, 2012 at 10:48 PM