More Progress and Weekend Open Thread

 

"Don't Take No for an Answer" - Tom Robinson Band

- And now Maryland joins the equality bandwagon.  This is great news.  A bill just squeaked through the Maryland House by a vote of 71 - 67 after some touch and go moments.  The African-American churches in Prince Georges County and in and around Baltimore had proven to be a significant obstacle, but in the end there were just enough votes.  Passage in the Senate -- which passed a marriage equality bill last year -- is pretty much assured.  And Governor Martin O'Malley will happily sign it, having pushed hard for its passage, in the process trying to duplicate Andrew Cuomo's feat of last year.  O'Malley pretty clearly has presidential ambitions and sees this as a path to national recognition.

It is a mark of the extraordinary progress that we have seen on this front in the last couple of years that aggressively pursuing marriage equality is seen as a means of generating mass appeal for a presidential campaign within the Democratic Party. 

I think that New Jersey will soon join the ranks, Chris Christie's gutless veto notwithstanding.  And I think California will get there one way or another.  Maine too.  I would think that Rhode Island can't be too far behind. 

Where the battle goes from there is a little uncertain.  I don't really have a sense of where things stand in Oregon, but that is obviously a place that you would think would be promising turf.  It would be nice to see some opening in the middle of the country -- beyond Iowa, where marriage equality was the product of litigation rather than legislation.  Although I am sympathetic to the idea that equal rights should not be left to the vagaries of electoral politics, I am always pleased when this sort of thing can be accomplished via legislation.  I would think Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota would be the logical places to try.

What's your sense of this?  

And what else has grabbed your attention?  The idea that in 2012, there would be some people who think contraception is controversial.  That Mitt Romney seems to be continuing to bleed support?  Suddenly there seems to be a lot more fun to be had in politics than seemed possible a year ago.

Comments

[corvus9]

Illinois has had a "separate but equal" civil unions law in effect since, so same-sex couples have most of the rights of marriage here, it's just not, you know, marriage. According to wikipedia, however, a new same-sex marriage bill was introduced this month, and Quinn is supportive, which is good. Getting a civil unions bill passed is not nothing, but it has the possibility of slowing things down on the full marriage front, and it looks like that isn't happening. (Rahm supports it as well.)

[Linkmeister]

Hawai'i passed a constitutional amendment in 1998 which gave the legislature the authority to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples, and it promptly did so. The battle continued until 2011, when the legislature approved same-sex civil unions; the first ones were legally performed last month. I assume that at some point down the road a few years we'll take it to the next level.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

We haven't discussed the Montana Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United and I think we expected it to be little more than 'nullification.' But, judging from the excerpts I've seen from Judge McGrath, it might be stronger than that, and might not be as easily dismissed. (Anyone know where the whole decision is?)

The Brief for the state in opposition to the stay failed, but makes some nice points as well.

(h/t Blog for Arizona)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

When somebody -- in this case, again, Blog for Arizona -- tries to tell me that 'This Story Has Damn Near Everything" I tend to be skeptical.

But...

This story DOES have damn near everything.

There's even a Stockbridge Mass, connection. Oddjob, know anything about the DeSisto School?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And one last quickie -- maybe back to the campaigns tomorrow, I still want them on record.

I see a 'prominent GOP Senator speaking anonymously' has said that 'if Romney loses Michigan, we need a new candidate.' Assuming that he is not alone, this means he'd be willing for a brokered convention -- filing deadlines have already passed in too many places.

A brokered convention could have two outcomes, chaos that rivals McGovern in 72 and Davis in 1924, which -- along with the vicious and truly ugly platform fights between extremists and worse extremists -- would hurt the Republican Party everywhere.

But it could also, even with that, produce a fresh face, a dark horse (and not a recycled name like this Senator's choice, Jeb Bush) who could get a post-convention bump that might even make the Presidency tighter.

Okay, Michigan has an open primary. You are a Democratic voter who decides to cause some mischief, legitimately, by voting on the Republican side. Do you vote for Romney, hoping he goes on to win, wins the nomination, and gives Obama a landslide, but which might hurt the down ballot races?

Or do you go Santorum, hoping for the brokered convention, risking the outside possibility of an attractive candidate because of the disruption to the whole party -- and because that way people will actually notice the platform?

[Paula B]

Two thoughts:
This whole contraception craziness came on so suddenly that women as a group have not had a chance to respond in an organized manner. As soon as their heads stop spinning, I'm sure that will happen. Banning contraceptives is like banning air.
In a related story in the NYT, a new study shows more than half of children born to women under age 30 in the US are born out of wedlock. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that if one restricts or removes contraception from working women who head households with children, you have the potential for disaster on many fronts.

Charles M. Blow may have the last word on Rick Santorum:
http://nyti.ms/zfVE0k

Note that polls show Obama would win in Michigan over any GOP candidate if election were held today. Would be a good state to back down-ballot Democrats.

[Joe S]

I don't know if Illinois will pass a gay marriage bill anytime soon. Unlike Corvus, I don't think that Governor Quinn's support is really that helpful. Quinn's never had the support of the party in the way a traditional governor does. He got in by being Blago's lieutenant governor because nobody wanted the job and then Blago was impeached. Whenever I talk to party regulars, they really don't like Quinn. So Quinn's ability to push something is basically nonexistent. Thee will have to be something pushed up from the legislature which has a sizable portion of downstate, White ethnic Catholic, and African American and Latino Democrats. I don't know if the caucus would push for it because they would have to face the Catholic Church and African-American pastor generated shitstorm for no material change in the law.

On an unrelated matter, has Matt Yglesias always been a neoliberal contrarian (masked by a realist foreign policy) or has Yglesias changed his style to match his awful new position at Slate. I've found his writng to be just awful recently. I remember really liking him about four years ago. Now he sounds like he wants to become the next Megan McCardle.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

No, I'm not thread-drowning, just forgetting how few people comment here early Saturdays and wanting to add one more thing for you to look at as the Friday fog disperses.

I mentioned that Blue in the Bluegrass has been running a series of "Songs to Fight The Plutocracy By." I thought they were just "Yellow Dog's" uploads, but apparently he's accepting others' as well. Anyway, here's a list of what he's put up recently. (To find them all, go here">http://blueinthebluegrass.blogspot.com/search/label/songs">here -- though you might also look around the main blog. Any place whose slogan is "Are you done playing nice with Republicans" is my sorta place and my sorta person.)

Miner's Lullaby (written by Utah Phillips, explained by him, and sung by Jody Stecher and Kate Brislin) The song and intro tells how miners took morphine with them in case of a catastrophe -- and how so many Catholic immigrants were conflicted between fear of a cave in and fear of hell for contemplating suicide.

"My husband and I are Roman in faith
And we have a secret to keep
If ever his life is taken away
Then gentle and long will he sleep"

The others should -- I hope -- be more familiar:

The CLASH - The Clampdown
The CLASH - Know Your Rights
Phil Ochs - Too Many Martyrs
Phil Ochs - That's What I want to Hear
Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
Bruce Springsteen - We Take Care of Our Own
Joe Hill - Should I Ever be a Soldier (Hill wrote it, not sure who sings it)
Joe Hill - Don't Take My Papa Away (in a reggae version)
Joe Hill - Workers of the World, Awaken! (also reggae)
Utah Phillips - Hallelujah, I'm a Bum
Utah Phillips - I will not Obey
Woody Guthrie - This Land is Your Land (with some verses you may not have heard -- and did you know it was written as a response to "God Bless America"?)
Woody Guthrie - Vigilante Man
Woody Guthrie - Sinking of the Reuben James
Woody Guthrie - Biggest Thing Man Has Ever Done

And that's Just for February, with the January ones being more Ochs and Guthrie.

Get the idea why I love the guy -- and Sir Charles, if anyone hears the echoes even more strongly, I'd expect it would be you. (And, BTW, Tom Robinson would be a great choice for him too. Why not drift over, read a little, and put it up.)

And make sure you page down and read the "Time to go on Offense" post and the NATION piece it links to.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One point on the 'story that has everything' above. You have to page down past a list of 'top stories' to reach it -- and it's a site that it is hard to 'back button' away from.

Still, it is WORTH it!

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

Jesus, that Arizona story is awesome. I have to ask my friends in Adams County Mass if they remember this guy. (But what a crappy site -- man that thing was really difficult to get through -- but well worth reading.)

Joe,

I think Yglesias's blog has really gone downhill since the move to Slate. I used to read him quite eagerly even when he irritated me. Lately I think he is doing more of the annoying contrarian neo-liberal stuff and less of the things I used to like. I am reading him less and less.

Linkmeister,

I kind of forgot about Hawaii, which was once the cutting edge state on this issue. I would assume that marriage equality would be pretty viable there.

corvus and Joe,

I assume that the same forces that made the battle a bit of a struggle in Maryland would also be a factor in Illinois. Still, of all of the states in that part of the world it strikes me as most promising. (I might have said Wisconsin at one time, but the whole Scott Walker and Ron Johnson election shook my faith in that.)

Jim,

Great list of songs. I can think of a few more off the top of my head -- Get Up Stand Up by Bob Marley, Pills and Soap by Elvis Costello, and Which Side are you on by Billy Bragg.

Paula,

I read both of those pieces in the Times this morning. Charles Blow has really become a good columnist after a shaky start. The article on out of wedlock births was disturbing to me and I may post about it. As much as I despise Charles Murray, I really don't like this trend either. One is struck by the awful passivity that accompanies family creation among those interviewed. It just sort of happens. This is a bizarre notion to me.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On a completely different subject...
(I know, I know, sometimes I get sick of the number of times my name appears on the 'recent posts' lists too, but I can't help it. I spend some time with my favorite writers too -- none of them have a name beginning with 'Y' or a name that could be read as a reflection of his attitude (Do-You-that!) -- and spot these real news stories that are being missed.

For example (h/t again Yellow Dog) the National Women's Law Center points out that while men were hit worse by the recession, they have also fared much better the last few years, that only 8% of the net gains in new jobs have gone to women -- and that while men's unemployment has dropped steadily, women's unemployment is slightly up for the period since June 2009.

The trouble is that while women have been getting hired in the private sector, they have suffered 70% of the job losses in the private sector.

But I'm sure David Brooks will say something this weekend that will be much more worth discussing.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Oops -- my snark button got pushed too fast. "Yellow Dog" has a name starting with "Y" too.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: Yellow Dog will be putting up the Marley -- I left the others for you to suggest -- as well as my own suggestion, Phil Ochs' "Small Circle of Friends." (Sometimes the Progressive ship needs a refurbished banner, sometimes it needs a kick in the aft.)

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I assume that the relative paucity of job gains for women has been due to the shrinking of the public sector, which has been ongoing almost continuously over the last couple of years. I assume that the gain in employment for men is probably due to some recovery in manufacturing and construction -- although I can assure you that construction is still really hurting.

[low-tech cyclist]

Changing the topic, if there was any doubt about whether Tyler Cowen had finally jumped the shark, this Tweet settles the matter.

Yeah, requiring that a woman be raped with a stick as a precondition to getting an abortion is "requiring consumers to be informed."

As one Balloon Juice commenter pithily said, "Um, what the hell would a woman be doing in an abortion clinic if she didn’t already know what was up in there? I think women are pretty clear on the concept."

For some time, I'd regarded Cowen as one of those conservatives worth at least debating with. In the past year or two, he's racked up a number of strikes against this estimation (none of which I can remember off the top of my head, but still).

But this clinches the deal. He's become just another GOP econohack, like Mankiw or one of those guys.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: Yes, the second 'private' should be 'public.'

[Joe S]

LTC, related to my post on Yglesias, I think he's read way too much Tyler Cowen. For the most part, I feel like Yglesias is shoveling some horseshit onto his moneybox blog which came straight from the horseshit Tyler Cowen puts on his social media. And like shit generally, Cowen's horseshit doesn't age well.

[Sir Charles]

l-t c,

I'm glad you commented on that Cowen tweet. I misread it at first and thought he was making fun of the bill's proponents.

What a schmuck.

Maybe Ezra and Matt can explain why this guy is worth reading as opposed to say, worthy of hitting in the groin with a baseball bat.

[Sir Charles]

Joe,

That's funny you said that -- see my comment above.

[corvus9]

There is no way a blog called Moneybox can ever be good. It's the rules.

[corvus9]

And what is it with members of the Lil' Villagers Club who have no formal training in economics fashioning themselves as economics bloggers? Jesus, at least when Sir Charles blogs about labor issues, he's actually, you know, a labor lawyer. Does it bother anyone else that this little homespun operation actually has more formal accreditation backing it up than people who are getting paid to write by Slate and the Atlantic?

[Sir Charles]

corvus,

And unlike Yglesias and McMegan, I actually have experience in things like labor markets, investments, health care and -- dare I say it -- adult living.

[beckya57]

I used to be an avid Yglesias reader, and have stopped for the same reasons given above. Slate just seems to require contrarianism, or something. Dalia Lithwick is the only one I read over there.

I like your approach to Tyler Cowen, SC, and can think of many other candidates for that treatment.

Passivity regarding family formation is a long-recognized "culture of poverty" characteristic. When people's experience teaches them that working hard and playing by the rules doesn't get them anywhere they often stop trying. Delay of gratification is one of the primary casualities; people get into a " live for the moment" mentality and no longer engage in thoughtful planning. Unplanned pregnancies are a common result.

[Joe S]

Corvus, McMegan actually has an MBA. Although her thinking is generally second rate across the board when it comes to economics. A few months ago I was discussing McMegan and the economics of healthcare with a fellow faculty member (who has an PhD in economics from Harvard and has taught economics for thirty years in various universities). He said its important never to believe anything McMegan says.

As for Yglesias, he's getting to the point that Marty Peretz might be ready to start buying him hirsute suits-- which apparently is all you need to blog about economics in D.C.

[Don K]

WRT Michigan and same-sex marriage, that will be a long time coming. The ban is part of the constitution, so there are two ways to repeal it.

One could get a 2/3 majority in the legislature, followed by a vote of the people. Well, a 2/3 majority for same-sex marriage will happen approximately never. Dems have never had a 2/3 majority in the legislature, and in any event such Dem majorities as we've had are completely uninterested in bringing our laws regarding sex into the 20th century (adultery is a ten-year felony, and there's a law making shacking up illegal). And forget about finding some Reps to do the right thing. They'd have to have a real political death wish, because they'd feel the financial fury of the Dutch Reformed and Catholic churches and of the DeVos family at the next election.

Alternatively, petitions could be circulated to obtain valid signatures equal to 10% of the votes for governor at the last election (presently a little less than 325,000). For that, you'd need an organized effort with the funding to collect the signatures and to run ads to counter the efforts of the Dutch Reformed, Catholic, and Mormon churches and the DeVos family, and that ain't gonna happen by passing the hat and getting volunteers at the gay bars.

I'm realistic enough to recognize that the Republican Party of Michigan is actively hostile and the Michigan Democratic Party is paranoid, and while the median voter may be sympathetic (or at least non-hostile), we're about 187th on their list of concerns. So do I think it's hopeless here? Yes I do.

[Sir Charles]

Don,

I did not realize it was in the Michigan constitution. That makes it much more difficult to deal with. Sigh.

It's the kind of thing that makes me think that Clinton may have been a genius in going along with DOMA.

[low-tech cyclist]

While I agree that Yglesias' posts these days are a mixed bag, I'm not about to quit reading him. Often enough, he absolutely nails something in a way that nobody else has, at least within the scope of my reading.

Take this post: the idea that while households can save for the future by socking away money, the only way a society can save for the future is by building things that will last and that will hold their value - i.e. infrastructure - was certainly new to me, and is one of those great 'obvious once you see it' ideas that I'd never encountered.

(And this particular idea really guts the main argument against investing in infrastructure now, which is basically one of long-run affordability.)

I can think of other times Matt's done this. Like take the perennial debates about what should be done at the federal v. the state level. We pretty much take states for granted, but Matt's the only person I know of who's pointed out that states are the worst of all possible levels of government for dealing with practically anything - that any government spending, any regulation, etc. that is too big to be appropriately handled at the city/county level really belongs at the Federal level.

That one has less immediate implications, but it implies that when the Federal government shares money downward, it should aim its resources directly at the city and county levels, and bypass states to the maximum extent possible.

It also suggests that we need to put some long-term effort into reducing the extent to which states can veto actions by cities and counties. For instance, there have been several instances where cities were all set to start developing their own wireless broadband systems, only to have their state legislators block the way.

So IMHO, Matt's worth keeping on the reading list for the simple reason that the answer to "am I going to learn something from him that I won't get from anyone else?" is still a solid "Yes." I can deal with his misses because his hits are important.

[Don K]

SC,

I guess I agree with you WRT Clinton. It's easy to conceive how, in the frenzy of the times, a 2/3 majority in Congress and 38 legislatures could have been gotten, and we would have been well and truly screwed.

As it is, this year we have to play defense in MN, NC, and WA, which will soak up a lot of money countering the lies of the other side.

[Joe S]

Beckya, Amanda Marcotte is over at Slate, and she's often worth reading (although she's funnier on her own Pandagon blog). There are a number of good bloggers at XX and the Root which, I guess, are part of Slate in a walled off, digital ghetto/convent kind of way. The fact that you forget about them seems like its kind of the point of the digital set up.

LTC, I'll have to look at Yglesias again, but the tenor of his blog has just changed, and not in a good way. He seems to have forgotten about the political economy we live in and become content to become one of the "Even the Liberal New Republic..." type bloggers. Apparently even Mickey Kaus used to have an occasionally good idea or blog post (although at 40, I'm too young to remember that). Yglesias seems headed down that path.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sorry, but I disagree that a Marriage Amendment would have been as easy to pass as the rest of you think. Constitutional Amendments aren't that easy to pass, and this one would have started with a rush, but would have been stopped long before passage. In fact, if the battle had been started, I think a lot of surprising closey doors would have swung or been pulled open -- not of famous people, though there would have been some. But a lot of people who 'knew they didn't know any faggots' would have been very surprised.

But the key was Clinton's 'double cave' on gays in the military. He ran on changing this completely, said it would be an early action, then as soon as he was in office he started his fampus poll-watching, and got yelled at by Sam Nunn and a couple of generals and admirals.

Presto, 'there is no reason gays shouldn't serve' changed to 'we'll allow them to serve -- if they don't make a public announcement that they were gay.' That was the original idea of DADT. It was still a major change in focus, but if it had been administered in that way -- effectively barring the equivalent of service people marching in gay parades in uniform, or writing a 'from the troops' column for a gay paper and signing it, but not bothering any gay who did not, him or herself, make his personal life public, and treating gay and straight intra-servive relationships the same -- it might have been an acceptable temporary compromise. (Even if there were minor annoyances like 'if your pin-up is your sex, keep it inside the locker' it would hve been tolerable.)

It was in the enforcement that Clinton really caved -- iirc the problems had started even before 1996, when gay marriage became an issue. People were already snooping on their squad mates and sending in information they had gathered without any attempt by the gay person to make his gayness public, and this sort of information was being acted upon as if the gay person had his picture on the cover of THE ADVOCATE.

And, damnit, there wasn't a President from FDR to GHWB -- except maybe the accidental Gerry Ford -- who would have caved on either if they had wanted gays to serve. (FDR or LBJ probably would have sent word to the Republican leadership that if they tried to block this, a lot of Congressional closets would have been opened, Truman or Eisenhower -- and, I believe, Carter -- would have said, simply, "I'm the Commander-and-Chief, DO IT!" Kennedy or Reagan would have -- and could have -- started changing the attitude of people, if only by inviting prominent gays to be among the visitors at the White House -- and Reagan could have mobilized Hollywood gays to begin coming out 'under his protection.' Even Nixon or Bush would have figured out a way to get it through if they'd wanted to.

And Republicans -- when will we learn this -- are like vicious dogs. Stay calm and centered and in control, you can learn how to deal with them, show fear and they'll rip you to shreds and you'll never regain your advantage.

I want to go back to that point next comment or so, but it was the cave on DADT that emboldened Republicans to try for a Marriage Amendment. (And remember that Clinton's "Disaster of 1994" wasn't as bad as the "Disaster of 2010" -- which, because of the Senate, has set us back in all areas and makes the possibility of a long-term SCOTUS majority against us very real -- but it was the worst before that. I still think both happened not because of Presidential progressivism but because both Presidents showed they would cave under pressure. Damnit, if Clinton had been President in the Sixties, he might have backed away from racial civil rights if the Republicans and Segregationist Democrats had threatened a "Separate But Equal" Amendment -- and plenty of people, even supporters of civil rights, would have been telling us how it would pass if we weren't very cautious in advancing black equality.)

Ironically -- if I am right that a Marriage Amendment would have failed -- not having it introduced hurt the advancement of gay marriage. The states that would have rushed to pass it would not have needed to amend state constitutions -- see Michigan, above -- and once the tide turned -- and it would have earlier -- they would have been free to accept SSM.

And you know I'm going to take this further, but let's end this part here.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I actually read the Yglesias piece, to see if some of my constant bitching about him as a prime representative of the 'blimp mentality' might have been overstated. If this is considered 'better than average Yglesias' it hasn't.

Joe is entirely right in his comments, but they understate the problems with it. It is both too complex and too simplistic, it is filled with assertions that are, at best dubious, it starts out by carefully separating 'reducing expenditures' and 'investments' then confuses the two -- and may be more accurate in doing so. (When Em and I buy 4 cartons of tissues because they are on sale, is that reducing expenditure, or investing in tissues -- profiting because of the price going back to normal and thus making the original purchase 'worth more.' And what does it mean 'economically' that we still pay more than if we bought a generic brand -- but choose the quality of Scotties or Kleenex -- Em prefers Scotties, I use either but prefer Kleenex.)

And, I would guess, for anyone married, under 50 and with an income that is below -- or even just above -- the six-figure amount, their main savings is for their children's college fund. (Pensions are deducted automatically, not chosen as a form of investment.) Now economists can put this in economic terms 'you invest in college so you can get the return of increased family income -- or even reduce the times Junior needs money he has to ask Daddy for.

But how many parents actually think that way -- or how many would feel such an explanation was, in fact, insulting? And the opening bit about "As an individual, the way you save for the future is you reduce the dollar value of your consumption to below the dollar value of your income and then you take the difference and invest it in something." Am I the only person who sees this as being very condescending and off-putting, who expects the average person to say 'Oh, you say it like it's so easy...'

And "But in practice household level savings overwhelmingly takes the form of holding financial instruments rather than holding stuff. Henwood's point, however, is that on a social level this only works for a tiny country." But why does Henwood say this, what justifcation does he have, and does the statement make sense? Just asserting it as a fact doesn't help much, does it. At least a brief 'because clause' would have given me some idea. But here is his blindness on political economy, because this is precisely what America has been trying to do, create a finance-based economy instead of either a manufacturing or service based one.

But, most of all, his ending falls into total nonsense. I know what he's trying to say -- and will cut him some slack because I do -- but I could still answer what he actually said quote simply. "If durability is your criterion, the Pyramids have lasted 4000 years, Mount Rushmore is more likely to outlast us than we are -- unless we handle global warming -- to oulast it, and what is more durable than a magnificent Cathedral. Are these things -- which pay at best small economic return by increasing tourism -- the sort of things you want us to invest in?"

For that matter, the most important infrastructure investment we can make is stopping global warming -- which is repairing the infrastructure of the planet itself -- but that may not involve building any durable structures whatsoever.

The blimp they claim so knowingly
To grasp a world only they can see,
With their wisdom and perspicacity.
(On that at least they all agree.)

And yet their insight seems to me
To fail to wonder why we flee
From this world so totally free
Of any trace of you or we.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Okay, now compare just a few sample paragraphs from some recent Desert Beacon economic columns, just to show how you 'do it right.'

There are some individuals who need supervision, most of them are small, some are illiterate, some don’t know their telephone numbers, and some have difficulty with simple tasks like tying their shoe laces — they are generally under the age of 6. However, some older models appear to need adult supervision as well — they are generally bankers. A quick review: The Big Lie. Initially, we could see this when they adopted the juvenile tactic most commonly associated with messes left on kitchen floors, the “Nobody Did It” stratagem. The bankers lobby has pressed for “self regulation” since the enactment of financial regulation reforms using the pretext that those “onerous regulations” are unnecessary because the banks weren’t responsible for the mess left on the everyone’s kitchen table. IT must have been “irresponsible borrowers,” but no, the borrowers had nothing to do with (1) the bankers relaxation of lending standards — they did that all by themselves, or (2) no borrower ever transformed a home mortgage into a synthetic CD — the bankers did that all by themselves. IT must have been the SEC’s (or fill in the blank with another agency of choice) — Why? Because they didn’t regulate us properly. OK, by this reasoning the mess on the kitchen floor is there because the adult in the house failed to notice? And, if we follow this argument then what of the current cry that regulation is a bad thing?

from "Adult Supervision Still Essential: The Bankers are back with structured CDs"

[using economics on a somewhat different argument] In addition to being off target in terms of popular opinion in the U.S., the GOP is also opening itself up to the charge that the current flap over contraception is a way to further the interests of the health insurance corporations who would very much like to put severe limits on what can be called “basic coverage.” Every premium dollar these corporations expend on actual health care is one less buck for their bottom line. Hence, if employers can opt out of contraceptives, vaccines for children, transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, psychiatric care for Scientologists, or all chemical based treatments for Christian Scientists… (we get the picture, and so did Jon Stewart in his “Vagina Ideologues” moment.)

(from The Blunt Amendment: Be Careful What you Wish for, With Charts)

or this

One effect we might well bet on is that should the Greek’s program fail there will be great gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth on Wall Street. It’s probably safe to predict that the Stock Market would report a drop in stock prices in the event of a Greek failure, as The Herd sees an equally predictable decline in the financial sector’s estimated short term revenues. The problem in the United States may be to engage in deep breathing while The Herd thunders and panics over its “exposure” and possible consequent decline in bonuses and executive compensation?

Just as the banks securitized every U.S. mortgage on which they could lay hands during the Housing Bubble and then sliced diced and traded the portions in unregulated derivatives to their detriment, they decided to lend some $8.7 billion to the Greeks — which may or may not be paid back. Bluntly speaking this is more an example of “reduced lending standards” to be endured than a reason for U.S. citizens to pony up any coin of the realm to further bail out institutions which decry regulation while demonstrating exactly why they need it.

(from Beware of Politicians Speaking of Greeks: Updated)

Want some infrastructure?

The State advertises that we have no corporate income tax, no taxes on corporate shares, no franchise tax, no personal income tax, no nominal annual fees, no unitary tax, no franchise tax on income, and no tax on gifts or inheritances. We have no estate tax, and a minimal payroll tax. Promise to stay in Nevada for 5 years and we will give you a sales and use tax abatement, sales and use tax deferrals, personal property tax abatement, and a modified business tax abatement. If you are a qualified recycler we’ll toss in a 50% reduction in the recycling property tax. [LCB]

At this point our problem is beginning to show. Nevada has a sincere interest in attracting businesses to the state, but its No-Tax policies (designed to attract businesses) are at odds with the state’s capacity to fund the institutions of higher education needed to “fill out” the business environment with qualified employees and research capabilities. For the umpteenth time in this space: It is not enough to merely create a Tax Free Zone to attract firms engaged in business and professional services, or medical technology and research, or education and health services IF the educational/research infrastructure isn’t in place.

and (both are from "When is Someone Going to Ask the Obvious Question")

The financialist, or banker’s, perspective sees the creation, marketing, and sales of financial products as the raison d’etre of our economic system. If “it,” whatever “it” might be, doesn’t show a clear short term (as in quarterly) profit then “it” isn’t attractive. Financialism has an acute appetite for the bonds generated by states and municipalities to finance infrastructure projects, but it seems to have little or no interest in supporting tax structures that would allow those states and municipalities to repay them.

Financialists will fight, with all their nails and incisors, for fodder to feed the securitization schemes and derivatives markets. However, when it comes down to devising tax systems which would allow for the investment and repayment of bonds in the first place — the loudest scream we hear is “No New Taxes.”

Thus Nevada will continue to operate governed by the pleasant fantasy that a “pro-business climate” means No Taxes to speak of, and a paucity of state and local resources to invest in long term capital improvements to establish a more “pro-business” environment.

At some point we really do need to ask the next obvious question: When does the situation in terms of both employment and business infrastructure become so dire that we are forced to invest in our long term economic needs?

And that's just going back to February 7th. Which articles would get through to the intelligent but ignorant voter? (Hell, sometimes I wish they'd get through to our intelligent but seemingly ignorant -- on economics -- President.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Time for a nap, and probably some tv before I can get here at odd moments during the cat box -- the process takes 8 hours, and usually involves simultaneously doing other work around the house and happens twice a week, usually Sun and Thurs.

But before I go, I have to include one more cite to DB, and this one should be read in its entirety -- okay, they all should but especially this one.

Okay, one 'money quote':

Here’s the Catch 22. One vehicle, probably needed to get to work, doesn’t count against the recipients, nor do the clothes on their backs, or the furniture and appliances, or the burial funds and plots. Or the house with the roof over their heads. BUT keeping these items is another matter. While conservatives bemoan the lack of “savings” evidenced by the poorest among us, the rules of the game are rigged so that if a person does manage to put some money away for retirement, educating children, paying for medical services (like a Health Savings Account) — THEN those are countable assets which diminish the support for the family because Heaven forefend! They’d be Welfare Queens. In short, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Gee, if “those people” would “just save” then they wouldn’t need public assistance, but if they are eligible for public assistance and DO save they are penalized. If, of course, they don’t save then they can get the help they need to keep the family afloat for the month.

And now, next time your Republican Aunt starts decrying 'welfare queens'...

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

btw, Sir C: Shouldn't we have celebrated the 75th Anniversary of the UAW's winning of the Flint Sit-Down strike last Saturday? Seems like it should be a compulsory holiday for any Union worker.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Pkay, sorry, keep bouncing from blog to blog and coming up with things. Like this comment on a post at Texas Freedom Network Insider that I wish someone could confirm, because it sounds like a great point if it ian't a factoid:

Another interesting fact about contraception and insurance is that insurance pools whose policies offer contraception coverage have lower loss ratios (payouts to policy holders) than those that do not. The reason? With access to contraception, women have fewer children and fewer abortions, saving money for the insurance companies. It’s also cheaper to treat conditions like endometriosis with contraceptive pills than surgery. Lower loss ratios is an additional reason that the administration is mandating coverage without co-pays, co-insurance or deductibles. It lowers costs for everyone. An appropriate consequence of all that is that policies funded by religious institutions that do not cover contraception cost more!

Sounds logical, but anyone know if stats back it up?

[Paula B]

Prup, this is from the Guttmacher Institute (http://bit.ly/vZyJWS)

Contraceptive use helps women avoid unintended pregnancy and improve birthspacing, which in turn have substantial positive consequences for infants, women, families and society. Moreover, although cost can be a daunting barrier to effective contraceptive use on the part of individual women, the evidence strongly suggests that insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies without cost-sharing is a low-cost or even cost-saving means of helping women overcome this obstacle.
…

Yet, although the costs of contraception can be daunting for individual women, insurance coverage of contraceptive services and supplies—both public and private—actually saves money. Guttmacher Institute research finds that every public dollar invested in contraception saves $3.74 in short-term Medicaid expenditures for care related to births from unintended pregnancies. In total, services provided at publicly funded family planning centers saved $5.1 billion in 2008. (Significantly, these savings do not account for any of the broader health, social or economic benefits to women and families from contraceptive services and supplies and the ability to time, space and prepare for pregnancies.) A 2010 Brookings Institution analysis came to the same conclusion, and projected that expanding access to family planning services under Medicaid saves $4.26 for every $1 spent.
In terms of costs and savings for the private sector, multiple studies over the past two decades have compared the cost-effectiveness of the various methods of contraception, finding that all of them are cost-effective when taking into account the costs of unintended pregnancies averted. The federal government, the nation’s largest employer, reported that it experienced no increase in costs at all after Congress mandated coverage of contraceptives for federal employees. Moreover, a 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health, a membership group for large employers to address their health policy concerns, estimated that it costs employers 15–17% more to not provide contraceptive coverage in their health plans than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity. Mercer, the employee benefits consulting firm, reached a similar conclusion. And a more recent National Business Group on Health report, drawing on actuarial estimates by PricewaterhouseCoopers, concluded that even if contraception were exempted from cost-sharing, the savings from its coverage would exceed the costs.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

On a micro level I have found that when the self-insured union medical plans that I represent added contraceptive coverage -- some did not do so until relatively recently (I am not sure if this is the vestige of Catholic dominance of the building trades) -- it was generally assumed to be at most a wash in terms of costs. Each pregnancy prevented -- not to imagine the beneficiaries not added to the plan -- covers a whole lot of contraceptive costs.

And yes, it was highly remiss of me not to post on the sit-down strikes, one of the events that inspired me to my chosen trade. My introduction to the sit-down strikes was the recounting of them in William Manchester's "The Glory and the Dream" his extremely readable history of the U.S. from 1932-72, which features great treatment of long time UAW president Walter Reuther as well.

[nancy]

Jim -- And now, next time your Republican Aunt starts decrying 'welfare queens'...

That would be my Mormon extended family. I was blissfully unaware of some of their more judgmental pronouncements until my son started reporting on some of their facebook pages.

From one twenty-something: the students at UC Davis "deserved to be pepper-sprayed". From another: urine tests are perfectly appropriate for welfare recipients because, after all, she had to submit one as an ER nurse where she "earns the money that pays for that welfare". Another thinks Mitt Romney alone will make the country "right" again [read dangerous Obama]. These are privileged middle-class kids with BYU educations. Polite, well-behaved, and perfectly fine throwing this stuff around with 'welfare' a special sore spot.

Thanks for the link. You may have another page for the 'pamphlet'. I've got something that can be forwarded, although my son doesn't hold out much hope since very soon all of them will have their own passel of wee ones to be 'educated' in the folkways.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

nancy:
I seriously -- without the slightest snark or sarcasm -- want to thank you for putting those quotes around 'pamphlet' because it gives me a chance to say something -- and because it is the impetus for me to begin work on the second part of 'Campaign 3' -- I did the first part when I e-mailed PFAW and requested a list of every Member of Congress who had appeared on the Bryan Fischer Show -- and explained why I wanted them in general terms. (The specific 'campaign' is at the end of this thread.

First the statement, sorry for the bold but I want the emphasis:

When I speak of these pamphlets and campaigns, I am not speaking in any way 'metaphorically,' nor am I engaging in "Sports Talk Radio," that is, saying 'what I'd do if I were running the Party."

I am referring to actual, physical documents that I am already preparing the initial drafts of, documents that I intend to do everything I can do to see are used in much the way I have discussed them.

I am handicapped both by a lack of resources to carry this out, and a number of factors, from my physical appearance to the fact that I really have been a messenger and temporary clerk and nothing more during my working life, have only one year of college, and have no personal experience in politics since serving as a poll watcher in Baltimore in 1969. I have no skill at handling money and would refuse anything involving its dispersement on any but a routine level -- and would prefer, because of Medicaid, not even to do that.

Because of this, I need to find someone who has the resources, skills, time, and even physical strength and appearance to run this. At that point I would either step aside or serve in whatever clerical or advisory capacity the person chose. I would, however, continue to pester you and other friends in the blogosphere for information, and ideally for help in arranging a distribution network.

This will only become a 'metaphor' if I am unable to find someone capable of making it real -- and I hate the fact that I can't be the person to take the lead on this. (And I am not in any way 'in hiding' and would gladly be known as the 'guy who came up with the idea.' Hell, I'd even do (radio or phone) interviews -- you don't want a semi-toothless 65 year old who doesn't even own a sports jacket or a tie and is liable to break into a coughing fit to go on tv.)

This is a vital election -- and the Presidency is the least important part. It is vital that we not lose control of the Senate and that we regain control of the House, or we will discover just how dangerous "Congressionally-based Government" can be. (Look to the Gilded Age and to the 20s for examples.) And we are constantly in danger of losing the slim majority (meaning Kennedy comes down 'heads up' 60% of the time) we have on SCOTUS. Right now -- and during the last year -- Obama could not get even a centrist confirmed uless he found another Souter. A Republican majority in the Senate, or even a Republican minority unshaken by too many 'close calls' and he's blocked for the rest of his term. (You think this year's Senate electoral breakdown favors the Republicans, look at the seats coming up in 2014.)

But I think we can do more than 'win on defense.' We can take advantage of the disarray of the Republicans, the weakness in their positions, their overreaching -- and the fact that they don't expect to be attacked from certain directions and are unprepared to defend there. We can turn things around and once again regain control of the dialogue that we should never have lost.

I wish i could say that these were ideas that 'I thought Democrats should do' because it would be easier taking time off and just finally getting back to now four series of books I have completed and been unable to touch.

But i ended another recent post with what seemed like -- okay, and was -- a 'rhetorical flourish' but which was also meant as questions I wanted answers to:

If not us, who?
If not now, when?

I'll take answers, but I'd rather have help.

(And while I'll be ducking in and out, my non-catbox time will be mostly spent preparing a beginning list of Bryan Fischer quotes.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, the RWW is having problems, so I haven't really begun, but I have a question. It will be easy to compile a list of at least 100 distinct Bryan Fischer quotes that should be sufficiently horrifying. The trpuble might be limiting it to that. Okay, given that list, do I just use one group of about 35 in the all the ads, or do I attempt to 'target' them, maybe using 20 as standard but picking fifteen per district that might resonate well there? (It would mean maybe a slight delay as I had some sort of conversation with a person -- ideally the person who will 'co-sign' the ad -- about the conditions in the District.)

Also, for this and other purposes, will you, if you live in or know details of a Republican District, just take the time to call any newspapers there and find out their ad rates for a series of ads -- for weeklies, I guess the ads would appear all in one issue except perhaps for the 'closer' for dailies, five weekday ads and one Sunday ad twice the size. And also if they accept political advertising from an independent source, not just from a campaign.

On that, if you get any info, e-mail me at jimbentn at verizon dot net. (Note the missing o in the name)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir C: Just heard that the ILWU won the strike against EGT. Since this involved a major California labor victory, and the Union credited the West Coast Occupy Movement, worth noting?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One last note. I did what I've accused others of doing, assuming that, because I knew something, everyone did. In this case, who Bryan Fischer -- whose name I have misspelled in the past -- is and why he deserves such a campaign.

Fischer was a loud but obscure extreme homophobe who had a ministry in Idaho until he was hired as, in effect, the spokesman and 'Director of Issue Analysis" for the American Family Association -- which most people remember mostly as an organization devoted to protesting 'dirty television.'

The combination changed both. Fischer's bigotry blossomed and spread, and the AFA, mostly through Fischer's efforts, has become a SPLC-designated hate group. Still not worth the notice, though the range of his bigotry has become rather spectacular -- except that the AFA runs a 24-hour radio station broadcast in 33 states -- 4 other states have 'affiliates' listed. And that radio station has become 'important' enough that Republican officeholders regularly appear on it.

Not the fringes. Last week one guest was Mitch McConnell. The second highest ranking Republican elected official, appearing on a show with a host that has said -- among many other things:

that a Muslim should not be allowed to immigrate or become an American citizen unless he "would be required to "drop his Islam and his Qur’an at Ellis Island."

That 'not only are women emotionally unfit for combat but also physically unfit because, as Fischer explained in his column today, "the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up."'

That American Indians deserved the treatment they received from whites because they refused to convert to Christianity.

That HIV does not cause AIDS and that the real cause is 'poppers.'

That 'Remember, Adolf Hitler got elected, people elected him in 1933 in overwhelming majorities, they elected their own tyrant. We’ve essentially done the same thing here in the United States, we elected somebody at the ballot box who is behaving like a dictatorial tyrant, completely ignoring the constraints and the limits of the law and the Constitution and imposing his view of society on us. He just sees the Constitution as a nuisance, something that gets in his way, something that has to be overcome.'

(about Penney's hiring of Ellen DeGeneres) Research has indicated that lesbians suffer from increased levels of depression, suicidal ideation, substance abuse, breast cancer and vaginal diseases compared to heterosexual women. Thus what JCPenney has done, by increasing, even if ever so slightly, the chances that young women will experiment with this behavior will turn out to be a tragic thing for some. JCPenney will have to share some culpability for that.

In fact, 'Bryan Fischer keeps finding that his own organization censors articles he posts to the AFA’s website, including one where he claimed that welfare encourages African Americans to “rut like rabbits”'

And I'm sorry that I was unable to find the one where he also attacks bears -- or rather humans for not killing bears as the bible demands.

What a person for the Minority Leader of the Senate to share a podium with.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Damn, was saving the best for last, then forgot it. Fischer also claimed the Congress downgraded and 'feminized' the Medal of Honor by awarding it to someone who 'merely' saved his fellow soldiers' lives, but did not kill any enemy in the process.

[Paula B]

Yeah, those damned, simpy women. I know one who just finished two tours in Iraq and could probably dismember two linebackers with her bare hands.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

OH, he's big on 'masculinity' and what he sees as inherent differences between the sexes. That and his hysterical, over-the-top homophobia is why, when he was an obscure Idaho noisemaker, most people who discussed him were sure he had a closet in his skeleton.

Now that his hate has expanded so greatly, I don't hear this much any more. Gives one to think, don't it?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

BTW, Sir C and others, Yellow Dog has posted Get Up, Stand Up -- he credited me but I corrected him once he passes my comment through moderation.

The reason it's worth mentioning is that he has also posted the lyrics, for those who couldn't penetrate the Jamaican accent.

[nancy]

Sullivan has a poll up showing that if the vote were taken today, in the south Santorum earns 45%.

Unbelievable. Solace at Lance Mannion's place . A letter from a former altar boy to the national press corps regarding that 'devout' Catholic, Rick Santorum.

[Paula B]

Here's an interesting overview of the birth control saga that was just put up at WaPo. The first two pages are quite good, then I feel the argument shredded. Personally, I prefer Naomi Dagan Bloom's take, expressed on Time Goes By. She says the reason birth control has surfaced as an issue is that the economy is improving. The GOP had to find a controversy that would galvanize voters across many platforms/cultures/classes/states to detract them from anything positive that Obama might do. They tossed out a red herring, a very old game. But then, they're very old guys. They must think we're really stupid.
http://wapo.st/zEhntG

[nancy]

Paula -- WaPo belaboring the obvious, and weeks late.

Short version is 'GOP, they got nuthin left'.

[kathy a.]

nancy, love mannion's piece.

paula, i'm perplexed about the birth control foo-fah. out of the air; crazy; guaranteed to alienate most women and many men. weird. alien, in modern culture. definitely hateful.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The Mannion piece is so good -- in fact I was going to comment on it today -- and will tomorrow -- that I hate to say what I am going to, because you'll all think I['m reaching. But, coincidentally, Desert Beacon -- I know, Iknow, i was surprised, too, has a piece on Santorum's comments about Santorum's religion as it pertains to his anti-environmental comments.

It is, not surprisingly, brilliant, as she starts with the Catholic environmental position, shows that Santorum's position is against that, goes through almost every branch of Protestantism, both reform and orthodox Judaism, and even Islam, and shows how each of them preaches a stewardship of the Earth that Santorum rejects.

She finally finds the only philosophy that matches his attitude, objectivism. That would be delightful enough by itself, seeing him holding onto the feet of John Galt as he is pursued by dagger weilding priests, preachers, presbyters, rabbis, and imams.

But she ends it by linking to an opion of objectivism. Okay, I'll cheat and quote it first, then give the source:

Man's existence must stay in existence. This is the mandate of the individual and the utility of the virtue of selfishness. Non-existence is the result of altruism and careens toward death. Making sacrifices for one's born or unborn children, one's elderly parents or other family members becomes anathema for Ayn Rand. She wants a Culture of Life to emerge, but she envisions that culture solely in terms of individuals choosing selfishly, the private goods of their own existence. If ever the anthem for a pro-choice philosophy has been recorded, it comes from the pen of Ayn Rand: "Man has to be man – by choice; he has to hold his life as a value – by choice; he has to learn to sustain it – by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practise his virtues – by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality."

No philosopher ever proposed a more simple and straightforward view of life than the one Ayn Rand urges upon us. Man=Man; Existence = Existence; only individuals are real; all forms of altruism are inherently evil. There are no nuances or paradoxes. There is no wisdom. There is no depth. Complex issues divide reality into simple dichotomies. There is individualism and altruism, and nothing in between. Despite the apparent superficiality of her philosophy, Rand considered herself history's greatest philosopher after Aristotle.

[snip]

Ayn Rand's philosophy is unlivable, either by her or anyone else. A philosophy that is unlivable can hardly be instrumental in building a Culture of Life. It is unlivable because it is based on a false anthropology. The human being is not a mere individual, but a person. As such, he is a synthesis of individual uniqueness and communal participation. Man is a transcendent being. He is more than his individuality.

It's from The Catholic Education Resource Center. And if you think this is a 'liberal, modernist Catholic organization' click on the sidebar on the article on "ObamaCare vs. The Constotution" and you'll find our old friend, the Cabbage Smasher.

[Paula B]

Even without Santorum, the Catholic Church is flexing its muscles more quietly, in many clinical areas. I spoke a week ago about conflicts in hospice treatment. This, from a story about the impact of mergers among Catholic and secular hospitals, in today's NYT:
... some procedures that run counter to Catholic doctrine may no longer be available or will be much more limited. Some doctors fear they may not be able to do what’s best for patients, forced to wait to treat a woman who is miscarrying, for example, or to send a rape victim elsewhere for an emergency contraceptive.
http://nyti.ms/w7k4lh

Santorum is simply a handmaiden.

[Paula B]

From Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fifth Edition, 2009:

Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as
their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.

As the Times piece pointed out, in many places -- even cities as big as Louisville KY -- patients have no choice but a Catholic hospital. After a rape, decisions may be made quickly, with little time to call ahead to find out whether or not a woman can be treated with a morning-after pill. She goes to the hospital, is examined, treated with "compassionate and understanding care," whatever that means, but, ultimately may be doubly screwed. I imagine a lot of people who regularly use religious hospitals do not realize their care is built to further the tenets of that religion. After all is said and done, this flap over birth control may oddly work to enlighten people who never gave a second thought to what hospital they went to.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

For an even better picking apart of Little Ricky's 'selective sanctity' read Juan Cole's take on it. Only, even though you can collect your 'bundle of hypocrisies' from the first page alone, keep eading, because Cole makes a strong case for the benefits of religious pluralism -- not the usual one -- and finds that even the Bishops' intervention in the contraceptive issue is a potentially positive occurence.

Okay, 'money quote' time:

The tradition of American progressive thought is tolerant of religion even while usually not being religious itself. In my view this attitude of tolerance is rooted in James Madison’s theory of democracy, which is that it is best preserved by lively arguments among groups in the body politic that disagree with one another. Thus, while the Roman Catholic church authorities adopted a negative stance toward modernity, cultural pluralism, and democracy in the nineteenth century, the Catholic community in the United States nevertheless contributed in important ways to modernity, cultural pluralism and democracy. Arguably, had the US been entirely Protestant, its law and practice would have evolved in a less pluralistic and tolerant direction.

A flourishing Catholic community contributed to social debates and so improved American democracy– witness Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker movement. And, the reformist theologians of the twentieth century, most of them European or Latin American, cultivated by American Catholics, made important contributions to our understanding– Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Hans Kueng, Paulo Freire, and Gustavo Gutierrez. I would argue that Vatican II was an important event in American religious life across the board, not just for American Catholics. It is lack of appreciation of Madisonian conceptions of democracy of pluralism and checks and balances that led the late Christopher Hitchens to disregard altogether the enormous positive contribution of the Church, whether to the education of the poor and working classes or to teaching social justice. (By the way, the argument for democracy depending on diverse voices and vigorous debate is also an argument for the benefits for the US of the advent of Islam in American public life).

So, the arguments the bishops are making about the balance between conscience and the obligations of civil law should be welcomed by all Americans as part of our national dialectic.

(btw, h/t to DB on that one too, in fact it actually preceded the piece I quoted from last night.)

[oddjob]

Oddjob, know anything about the DeSisto School?

Never heard of it.

[oddjob]

I also doubt Minnesota is fertile territory for marriage equality at this present time. They've already made it illegal and this November the state's voting on whether to add that prohibition to its state constitution.

If they vote not to do that I believe it will be the first time the haters will have lost a public vote.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One example of how a story can make it to the fringes of the blimp -- C&L seems to straddle the two groups -- and still get overlooked by the 'real blimp.'

Two weeks ago, C&L wrote the following -- and actually quoted from local coverage:

Medicaid spending is a matter of urgency almost everywhere in the country right now, but in few places is the urgency as palpable as it is here, where the governor refers to the federal-state health insurance program for the poor as “welfare,” says it’s necessary to eliminate coverage for 65,000 adults, and wants to stop paying room and board for some 2,000 elders who live in group homes.

Anybody here able to name the Republican Governor without checking C&L?

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

I can't quite decide between Walker, Scott, Kasich, and Daniels.

Now I have to go look.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And, I discover another Republican governor has recently cut nearly 100,000 people from Medicaid. Pretty large state, pretty big story -- and a state which is pretty important in the election. Great coverage, or it would have been except

It isn't News until WE say it's news

And you know they'd never refer to, or even read a Susie Madrak story -- or one by her fellow C&Ler, Dave Neiwert -- because they actually are so gauche as to stoop to reading actual local news coverage.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Wrong on all three, for either story.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Nor was it the Republican Governor who is sending 'managers' to take over various cities and depose the elected governments. That story has gotten coverage -- more because of Rachel than becuase it was pushed by those in the luxury gondola. But I'm wondering, most of you can probably name the state, but can you name the Governor?

[nancy]

Jim -- It's probably Paul Le Page in Maine. However, I believe what's planned in Texas isn't going to be easy to accomplish either without a large number of people getting hurt.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

It's the dude from Michigan, who I heard interviewed today on npr and still can't come up with his name.

[nancy]

I'm willing to give the 'blimp' a bit of a pass on this and here's why. There's bad news almost across the board, but each state is dealing with trying to repair the damage differently. Dem. Gov. Gregoire has made cuts here I'd have guessed unthinkable not many years ago. She very publicly struggled with making those cuts. Perry is no doubt reveling in the job. But the story overall is by degrees and calendar.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Got it -- LePage it is. Still mising the second one. Sir C., right state for #3, c'mon, the name, guy!

And no, nancy, no pass this time. It would be easy to write an article explaining that the main reason for the cuts is the cutting off of the usual Federal supplement for it -- as is true with education funding -- and that that was the result of Republican 'hostage taking' last year. (And yes, that was another reult of the Disaster of 2010. How the safety net would be shredded was questionable, that it would be was certain -- and predicted.)

But the article should go on to contrast those states where this is the only squeeze on Medicaid with those states -- including most of the Republican-led ones -- where, knowing this was coming, state taxes were lowered or specific tax breaks were given to corporations. (If I were doing it, I'd have to admit desiring to give one kick in the groin to one Democrat, Ben Chandler of Ky, for wasting money on the "Flintstone Truther' theme park that is biblically based and shows man and dinosaurs coexisting peacefully on the Ark.)

But I won't give the blimp, or anybody else -- including myself -- any sort of a pass for the way we've discussed this, as a matter of politics and economics, and 'which pocket does the money go in.' You guys have a bit of an excuse, and the goddamn blimp gets a pass on this, because you all -- afaik -- have never needed or been on Medicaid. I have none whatsoever. I think I'm the only person here who has, and almost certainly the only person for whom Medicaid was a step up from a life of existing uninsured.

Now I could be cruel, uncouth, and far too emotional. I could totally demonstrrate I was never going to be a person who gets invited to dinner parties wit the elites -- of either party. All I'd have to do is find someone who was an actuary, and find out just how many people are going to die as a result of these cuts -- forget sickness, that's 'just the breaks, guys' but death...

Then i could suggest that states, rather than cutting medicaid, merely have a lottery among the poor, with the losers being benignly and gently dispatched, maybe with an extra pay-off to their families to get them to 'take their chances.' The same amount of money could be saved -- the calculation wouldn't be that difficult -- though the safety net benefits are so small the numbers of 'winners' needed would be higher than expected, And the nes whose number wasn't picked wouldn't have to suffer the pain and ravages of those diseases they seem -- for some unknown reason -- to get more frequently than the rich.

But I wouldn't do that. Someday I might just get an engraved invitation...

[nancy]

And no, nancy, no pass this time.

Jim, the taxpayers of VA are going to be asked to pay for this procedure while commanding physicians to commit a mandated sex crime (where's the AMA on this btw?) all the while making the cuts to medicaid indicated below. Maybe WaPo will give it a go. I didn't mean give them a pass on reporting the severity of the problems, but detailing state by state plans.

The VA snapshot however now has to worsen if 'vaginal ultrasound by law' is voted up. And I cannot believe I just typed those words.

"Virginia---this 209(b) state’s parent level is 25/31% if wkg (‘12), CHIP’s is 200% & ADAP’s is 400%. It covers the wkg disabled. Gov McDonnell & the House (both R) ignored gentler Senate (tied) approaches to cut provider fees & mental health, substance abuse & community care funds, lower the $2,200/mo HCB waiver income level to $1,685, even with a waiting list of 6,000 (but $30 million more was later found for HCB care); and the aged/disabled level from 80 to 75%. Some mental health, Hep C & a few other Rx’s were cut from ADAP’s formulary & it closed enrollment (except to pregnant women, children & those being treated for opportunistic infections). ADAP”s waiting list is 1,104. A SPAP covers premiums & cost-sharing for HIV+ Pt D clients under 400%. The legislature over-rode McDonnell’s veto to make large firms’ health plans cover some autism care, but the Gov.& Attorney General interpret the law to sabotage it. ADAP will start paying premiums, deductibles & co-pays in the US health reform-funded risk pool in 2012 & expects this to cut per capita costs from $12,000 to $8,000/yr, McDonnell plans $323 million in hospital & nursing home cuts in 2013-14."

[nancy]

making the cuts to medicaid indicated below. s/b suffering the cuts...

[kathy a.]

jim, my grandmother was on medicaid (medical, in my state) during the 6.5 years i was her caretaker. i was working full-time to support my own family, my kids were little, and there was no way at all that i could care for her in my home -- or pay her bills for nursing and medical care.

this was in the early-mid 1990's. she could get by on SS and medicare and medical, with my dedicated support and contributions of things not covered. i'm not sure that is true today about someone like her "getting by," even with someone able to do the kind of advocacy and visiting and extras that i was able to do at the time.

what i am sure of is that we could not afford to pay for her care ourselves, or to provide it ourselves.