Marco Rubio, the junior Senator from Florida, recently asked a friendly audience something very much akin to, "Where do our rights come from? Do they come from politicians in Washington? Do they come from professors? One side of the poltical spectrum believes they do."
Our founders quoted, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. That each of us is endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." These founders were in many cases Dieists, people who beleived there MAY have once been a creator being, but one which no longer involved himself (herself) in our daily lives. The reference to that creator was made to identify our core rights as being NOT beholden to any King to grant, nor for any King to take away, no matter his (the King's) supposed divine rights. It was a challenge to the "divine right" of Kings, saying in fact we believed a "just God" accepted and supported the fair treatment of man (and women).
No one I know of thinks these rights simply exist because of the utterances of a few people. Certainly the VAST majority of Democrats and Independents I know believe NOT that rights spring from the mouth of one professor or another, or one politician or another, but instead from our collective human agreement, however derived, that certain liberties are immutable and to be conferred upon everyone (not just Americans). They have always existed, they will always exist quite simply because they are fair and right and proper. Certain philosophers may have quantified or articulated those rights in a way that we all agree with, such as John Locke or Robespierre, but those rights didn't spring from them.
But here's the news flash, those rights didn't start with nor spring forth from the Bible either (Old or New Testament). The concepts of self-determination can be traced back at least to the golden age of Greece. A period when the Greeks had not been exposed to the teachings of the Old Testament, in fact potentially predating the Exodus. Was the right of self-determination invalid prior to the Old Testament, did it not exist? Is Democray flawed because it didn't spring from the wrtings of Judeo-Christian theologians?
The answer of course is, "of course not." Yet, folks who follow Mr. Rubio (and Mr. Rubio himself) argue that ALL of our basic rights are inspired by the Bible, not just God. They try to claim all of our foundational ethics come from that text and then claim ALL of our core rights come from those texts. This despite the fact that the Bible teaches that there will be a "Kingdom of Christ", one in which Jesus will rule absolutely, with no self-determination for mortals. Our set of foundational rights include freedom of speech and open dissent against the government both of which run counter to the "render unto Ceasar" teachings of Jesus. Finally, they want to claim that freedom of religion (one of our most cherished freedoms) comes from "God" even though this runs absolutely counter to the evangelism dictates of the Bible, and certainly violently countered by the Old Testament example of treatment of the Ba'alists by the tribes of Israel. The fact of the matter is that some of our most "inalienable" rights run directly opposite to the teachings of the Bible, and so to claim that is from whence they've sprung is ignorance at best and wilful hypocrisy at worst.
Yet, many want to claim it is so. Why?? Why would they want to do so? The most optimistic answer is that they want to confer divine authority on some ideas to lend them credence and merit. But the more insidious, and troubling answer may be this. They want to make these claims because it allows them to wrap themselves in GOD and to claim divine authority for their political views. The complaints, like those of Mr. Rubio, are all about squelching dissent and mocking open debate and thought. That's why they make strawmen claims like that the left thinks rights spring from the mouths of politicians. A statement no more true than claiming these ideas sprang up from the Bible. The funny and ironic part is, those on the left don't actually claim the former (that rights spring from politicians), while those on the right DO claim the latter.
What those in the "reality based" crowd believe is that during the course of the human experience, we have discerned and identifed certain basic principles as being correct. Some are identifiable as similar to and reflecting the teachings of Bhudda or Jesus. Some cannot be (such as freedom of religion, self-representation, and freedom of dissent). We see oppression of speech, interference in the fair and free choices of people, the usurpation of liberty to travel, to assemble, as being wrong. We agree each person has value, equal in merit, to any other, and each vote is equal in value. We agree that just punishment, supported by the will of the governed is the only way to have an effective system of justice. We believe that open and free access to information, including open and respectful public debate, is the only way to a well informed, and therefore well-reasoned decision. We have agreed these rights are distinct from government, from the words or corruptions of man. Just like we agree that the existence of government relies upon the will of the governed, we see these rights as stemming from, deriving from, the collective will and agreement of thoughtful, compassionate men and women. We see them as existing outside any of us or any of our teachers, philosophers or politicians. Those people may put voice to them, but they have always been there. In short, if you believe in a creator, we have come to recognize a core set of principles with which we have been endowed, so long as we are wise enough to recognize them, and which have been there since we sprang forth, whether that's from mud or a rib.
And so that brings us to this, no one of import claims these rights were the invention of Aristotle or St. Simone or Voltairre. Educated and thoughtful minds instead think these are truths whcih we've come to realize over time. We can agree even that perhaps they have some divine spark, but someone who feels otherwise, that instead it is simply the collective learning of mankind throughout history which has brought us to this point, that person deserves respect. Their explanation is as valid as our own (if we believe in divine spark), and their explanation can easily and happily co-exist with our own. We do not need to insult their view, we do not need to, unless we are seeking power and control, we do not need to "win" and them "lose." such a debate. There is no way to prove our rightness, there is no way to prove they are wrong. In fact, if you acccept our core liberty of freedom of religion, in fact in a just society they are allowed to feel that there is no GOD motive, and they are allowed to be free from having to spout such God-speak inside the halls of government when talking about the origin and correctness of such rights. Yet, someone like Mr. Rubio, in fact MANY like Mr. Rubio, will shamelessly mock such thoughts, attempting to deceive willing, fawning listeners into disparaging, mocking and disrespecting aetheists and any and all those others who question the motives of anyone who tries to claim something as coming from God when that very thing is contrary to the "teachings" of that religion.
These "neo-puritans" want to put down and insult those who value educated thought. They want to use simplistic, distorted argument to devalue the high-minded ideals of people like Abraham Lincoln, who said that this nation was founded by our forefathers and concevied in liberty. They seek to claim as fact that which fact itself contradicts (namely that the Bible is the origin of all of our basic liberties) and they seek to claim as wrong those who disagree. They fail to understand the much more gentle and well-thought through idea that our liberties may have some element of origin in our creation, but our free will and human experience have also molded us, and in fact molded us to believe in some basic rights which the Bible contradicts directly.
It doesn't make those rights "wrong", but it most assuredly makes Marco Rubio, and the Right, wrong. I don't need a Bible to tell me I should have a vote, and good thing, it doesn't say I should. I don't need a Bible to tell me my religious beliefs stop at your feet, and good thing, they do and it doesn't say so. I don't need a Bible to tell me a man may love another man deeply and honestly, good thing, it doesn't say it. Love is not a concept unique to Christianity, yet love, forgiveness and tolerance, all good things, underpin all of our core freedoms and coincidentally all other religions. God may be love, but often organized religion is not. Unless you feel forcing religion on others, taking away their vote, and preventing free speech is good and proper, you cannot claim our "rights" come solely from the Judeo Christian ethic. Then again, maybe, just maybe, that's the point. Many on the right seem perfectly comfortable jailing those who cannot defend themselves, stripping rights from voters, calling dissent treason, maybe it IS that they feel those "other" rights shouldn't exist at all.
All I can say to that is, God help us (just maybe not the God you think).
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
A Penigma PSA on behalf of MNUnited.org / PRIDE
I have written here before on why we should have marriage equality; it is first and foremost about limiting the freedom to marry.
Need Volunteers for PRIDE
We just cannot miss this one-time opportunity to bring thousands of supporters into the campaign! There are going to be 300,000+ people in attendance. We are estimating that 75,000 of our supporters will be at Pride,but won’t vote unless we talk to them! This could be the margin of victory for the campaign. In order to talk to all of those people about the important work we are doing to defeat the amendment, we will need thousands of volunteers!
The work that you and others will be doing consists of talking to attendees of PRIDE about the amendment, getting them to pledge to vote NO in November and taking donations. Most likely, you will be with a team of 4 or 8 (including yourself) stationed near Loring Park in Minneapolis.
WHEN: SATURDAY SHIFTS:
· 9:15am-12pm
· 11:15am-3pm
· 2:15pm-6pm
· 5:15pm-9pm
NON-PARADE SUNDAY SHIFTS:
· 9:15am-12pm
· 11:15am-3pm
· 2:15pm-6pm
PARADE SHIFT: 8:00am to 1:00pm
We need a lot of volunteers to help talk to those watching the parade (volunteers will not be walking in the parade).
· Canvasser – participates on a team of 4 canvassers and one leader to recruits pledge no’s, shifts, and donations on one side of an assigned block along the parade route
· Runner – Supports a regional block leader by helping communicate with block leaders in a 4-block stretch of HennepinAve along parade route.
The training (at theMLPS Mn United Office will be 45min before you head out to the parade.
WHERE: We are going to be meeting (we will call if plans change) at the Minneapolis Minnesotans United office. It is located at 1629 Hennepin Ave, Minneapolis, 55403, Suite 200. It is very close to Loring Park in South Minneapolis.
Conversation Drive Schedule
We also host 2 types of conversation drives every week in our Coon Rapids office located at 11620 Crooked Lake Blvd, right between the water tower and American Legion:
Voter drives that consist of talking to voters in the North Metro/Suburbs about their opinion on marriage and same-sex couples.
Recruitment drives, are where we talk to known supporters and try to get them more involved in the campaign.
Post PRIDE:
Sunday's 5:30-8:30pm, Voter drive
Monday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
Tuesday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
(We also have a voter drive in N. Branch, located at 6499 Ash St., Community Room, just east of JJ's Bowl and Lounge)
Wednesday's 6:30-9:30pm, Voter drive
Thursday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
www.mnunited.org
Office line for Coon Rapids office is 763/270.0636
Twin Cities PRIDE is set for June 23 and 24, and we need hundreds of people on the ground to make it a huge success. Will you volunteer to be a part of history and help us defeat this amendment?"
Let's beat this thing!!
Need Volunteers for PRIDE
We just cannot miss this one-time opportunity to bring thousands of supporters into the campaign! There are going to be 300,000+ people in attendance. We are estimating that 75,000 of our supporters will be at Pride,but won’t vote unless we talk to them! This could be the margin of victory for the campaign. In order to talk to all of those people about the important work we are doing to defeat the amendment, we will need thousands of volunteers!
The work that you and others will be doing consists of talking to attendees of PRIDE about the amendment, getting them to pledge to vote NO in November and taking donations. Most likely, you will be with a team of 4 or 8 (including yourself) stationed near Loring Park in Minneapolis.
WHEN: SATURDAY SHIFTS:
· 9:15am-12pm
· 11:15am-3pm
· 2:15pm-6pm
· 5:15pm-9pm
NON-PARADE SUNDAY SHIFTS:
· 9:15am-12pm
· 11:15am-3pm
· 2:15pm-6pm
PARADE SHIFT: 8:00am to 1:00pm
We need a lot of volunteers to help talk to those watching the parade (volunteers will not be walking in the parade).
· Canvasser – participates on a team of 4 canvassers and one leader to recruits pledge no’s, shifts, and donations on one side of an assigned block along the parade route
· Runner – Supports a regional block leader by helping communicate with block leaders in a 4-block stretch of HennepinAve along parade route.
The training (at theMLPS Mn United Office will be 45min before you head out to the parade.
WHERE: We are going to be meeting (we will call if plans change) at the Minneapolis Minnesotans United office. It is located at 1629 Hennepin Ave, Minneapolis, 55403, Suite 200. It is very close to Loring Park in South Minneapolis.
Conversation Drive Schedule
We also host 2 types of conversation drives every week in our Coon Rapids office located at 11620 Crooked Lake Blvd, right between the water tower and American Legion:
Voter drives that consist of talking to voters in the North Metro/Suburbs about their opinion on marriage and same-sex couples.
Recruitment drives, are where we talk to known supporters and try to get them more involved in the campaign.
Post PRIDE:
Sunday's 5:30-8:30pm, Voter drive
Monday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
Tuesday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
(We also have a voter drive in N. Branch, located at 6499 Ash St., Community Room, just east of JJ's Bowl and Lounge)
Wednesday's 6:30-9:30pm, Voter drive
Thursday's 6:30-9:30pm, Recruitment drive
www.mnunited.org
Office line for Coon Rapids office is 763/270.0636
Twin Cities PRIDE is set for June 23 and 24, and we need hundreds of people on the ground to make it a huge success. Will you volunteer to be a part of history and help us defeat this amendment?"
Let's beat this thing!!
Why ALEC is BAD,
AND Why Right Wing False Assumptions / One-Size-Hurts-All Solutions Are Disastrous,/
This piece in the Op/Ed section on Monday, June 18 2012, of the New York Times sums up so much of what is wrong with Right Wing-nut legislative solutions and Right Wing-nut Ideology.
It assumes that the ideology and the solution fits the problem; it presumes that the people imposing the solutions don't actually need to know a damn thing about the problem they are attempting to address - badly. And most of all, it imposes solutions which are the OPPOSITE of Freedom and Liberty, and representative government where people elect those who govern. The right relies on theory that has NO substantive facts from experience to back it up, and that theory is badly flawed and not widely supported by the mainstream of economics where this sort of theory is peer reviewed and critiqued by people who know and understand economics.
We have elected representatives who will NOT balance budgets appropriately, or address issues. We have right wingers who want to resolve financial problems by taking from those who can least give it, and by refusing --- despite overwhelming support and desire for taxation of the upper income brackets -- under any circumstances.
Their claims that the wealthy are the job creators is hideously flawed; if that were true, the right having redistributed the overwhelming majority of our national wealth TO the richest few percent, would have created UNPRECEDENTED quantities of jobs.
Instead, we have had, applying this business formula, caused unprecedented job LOSS in this country, financial ruin, and jobs outsourced overseas at slave labor prices. The right has exported misery, while succeeding ONLY in growing misery, and loss and failure at home.
They have, as a result, destabilized and greatly weakened this nation. They have done harm that if not entirely irreparable, will take decades, and possibly generations to repair.
The right is NOT making us MORE FREE, the right is NOT making us STRONGER OR MORE SECURE, the right is NOT making us MORE COMPETITIVE in a global economy. Most of all the right is NOT making us a more inclusive and equitable, or just, society under law.
The policies and ideology of the right are intrusive, they are oppressive, they are contrary to the fundamental philosophy of our Founding Fathers and their foundational documents. The right is engaging in the same kind of heavy handed oppressive actions that prompted the American Revolution, and the role the right is playing is that of King George III's government.
The Right is GROSSLY CORRUPT, the Right is OWNED BY SPECIAL INTEREST. Make no mistake, those special interests will make huge profits at the expense of receivership and bankruptcies, and the selling off of assets, where alternatives would have actually served the people of the state, not the special interest vultures. ALEC pulls the puppet strings of the conservative legislators, who appear either to be in collusion, or too stupid to know or care what it is they are doing, so long as they get their cut of the action from ALEC in the form of direct and indirect payoffs.
From the NYTimes:
When ALEC Takes Over Your Town
By JOE NOCERA Published: June 18, 2012
(Emphasis where added is mine - DG)
The Rhode Island State Legislature finally adjourned its 2012 session around 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning. It had been a brutal last few days.
In May, the State Senate had approved a supplemental property tax increase of 13.8 percent, to be imposed on the residents of Woonsocket, a struggling city with a $10 million deficit. But when the bill moved to the House of Representatives, two conservative Woonsocket representatives refused to go along, and no amount of late-night negotiating could change their minds. Everyone finally gave up and went home.
The state has named a budget commission to grapple with Woonsocket’s money woes. Ultimately, though, a receiver may have to be appointed — which is to say, a person not beholden to the voters, who would nonetheless have the power to abrogate union contracts and do whatever else he or she deems necessary to erase the deficit. Incredibly, the two Woonsocket legislators have pushed for a receiver, despite the pain that it would likely bring their city.
Or maybe it’s not so incredible. It turns out that one of them, Jon Brien, is also on the national board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Although ALEC is probably best known for its support of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, the conservative group has a very clear agenda for dealing with state budgets. It wants to shrink them. Although Brien has denied that he is applying the ALEC philosophy to his small city, it looks, in fact, as if that’s exactly what he is doing. It’s not pretty.
Woonsocket’s problems stem from the decision of Rhode Island’s previous governor, a Republican named Don Carcieri, to balance the state’s budget by cutting state aid to the cities. All of Rhode Island’s poorer cities had become dependent on that aid, so when the economy soured, they essentially ran out of money. Providence had to renegotiate the retirement benefits of its municipal workers. Central Falls actually sought bankruptcy court protection — and a receiver was put in charge of its finances. As for Woonsocket, its current difficulties came to light last fall when the school district revealed a huge, unanticipated budget shortfall.
The two Woonsocket legislators quickly decided to apply Rahm Emanuel’s famous maxim about never letting a crisis go to waste. The fact that their town had a big budget deficit meant that if they played their cards right, they could do a lot more than just fix the schools’ problem. They could actually shrink the town government!
And how does one go about doing that? By refusing to go along with tax increases and forcing the city to the edge of bankruptcy, thus raising the possibility of bringing in a receiver. “You never move faster than when you have a piano hanging over your head,” Brien told me. “The receiver is that piano.”
He went on to say that the municipal unions — police, firefighters, teachers — “have been given pensions and benefits the city can no longer afford” but have no incentive to renegotiate. But a receiver, with the wave of a magic wand, can instantly cut their pensions, and there isn’t a thing they can do about it. When I asked Brien how bad the pension problem was in Woonsocket, he told me he didn’t know. “I’m a state legislator,” he said. “I don’t get into that level of municipal finance.”
Here’s the rub. Pensions are not the core problem in Woonsocket. Yes, Woonsocket has a pension shortfall, but it is more manageable than many other places and has almost nothing to do with the current crisis. “The meme in Rhode Island is that if there is a problem, you can trace it back to the public employees,” says Bob Plain, a journalist who runs the Web site RIFuture.org. In Providence, the pensions, with annual cost of living adjustment of up to 6 percent, were, indeed, a huge problem. (Note: My brother used to work for Angel Taveras, the city’s mayor.) But that’s just not true in Woonsocket.
Yet, in Central Falls, the receiver took an ax to retiree benefits, cutting them by 55 percent, meaning that many retirees are now getting pensions of under $20,000. The receiver has also laid off city workers, closed the city’s library and shuttered a popular community center. This is the future Woonsocket now faces, thanks to its own legislators.
Shrinking government sounds appealing. We all have our favorite examples of silly regulations and bloated bureaucracies. But struggling municipalities like Woonsocket don’t have a lot of fat; cutting means reducing or eliminating programs that citizens depend on. And, in any case, in a democracy, the decision of what — and whether — to cut should rest with elected officials who are responsible to voters, not to an unelected receiver using bankruptcy law to unilaterally make cuts.
That may be the ALEC solution, but it shouldn’t be ours.
Related News
Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist (April 22, 2012)
Related in Opinion
Paul Krugman: Lobbyists, Guns and Money (March 26, 2012).
Editorial: The Big Money Behind State Laws (February 13, 2012)
It assumes that the ideology and the solution fits the problem; it presumes that the people imposing the solutions don't actually need to know a damn thing about the problem they are attempting to address - badly. And most of all, it imposes solutions which are the OPPOSITE of Freedom and Liberty, and representative government where people elect those who govern. The right relies on theory that has NO substantive facts from experience to back it up, and that theory is badly flawed and not widely supported by the mainstream of economics where this sort of theory is peer reviewed and critiqued by people who know and understand economics.
We have elected representatives who will NOT balance budgets appropriately, or address issues. We have right wingers who want to resolve financial problems by taking from those who can least give it, and by refusing --- despite overwhelming support and desire for taxation of the upper income brackets -- under any circumstances.
Their claims that the wealthy are the job creators is hideously flawed; if that were true, the right having redistributed the overwhelming majority of our national wealth TO the richest few percent, would have created UNPRECEDENTED quantities of jobs.
Instead, we have had, applying this business formula, caused unprecedented job LOSS in this country, financial ruin, and jobs outsourced overseas at slave labor prices. The right has exported misery, while succeeding ONLY in growing misery, and loss and failure at home.
They have, as a result, destabilized and greatly weakened this nation. They have done harm that if not entirely irreparable, will take decades, and possibly generations to repair.
The right is NOT making us MORE FREE, the right is NOT making us STRONGER OR MORE SECURE, the right is NOT making us MORE COMPETITIVE in a global economy. Most of all the right is NOT making us a more inclusive and equitable, or just, society under law.
The policies and ideology of the right are intrusive, they are oppressive, they are contrary to the fundamental philosophy of our Founding Fathers and their foundational documents. The right is engaging in the same kind of heavy handed oppressive actions that prompted the American Revolution, and the role the right is playing is that of King George III's government.
The Right is GROSSLY CORRUPT, the Right is OWNED BY SPECIAL INTEREST. Make no mistake, those special interests will make huge profits at the expense of receivership and bankruptcies, and the selling off of assets, where alternatives would have actually served the people of the state, not the special interest vultures. ALEC pulls the puppet strings of the conservative legislators, who appear either to be in collusion, or too stupid to know or care what it is they are doing, so long as they get their cut of the action from ALEC in the form of direct and indirect payoffs.
From the NYTimes:
When ALEC Takes Over Your Town
By JOE NOCERA Published: June 18, 2012
(Emphasis where added is mine - DG)
The Rhode Island State Legislature finally adjourned its 2012 session around 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday morning. It had been a brutal last few days.
In May, the State Senate had approved a supplemental property tax increase of 13.8 percent, to be imposed on the residents of Woonsocket, a struggling city with a $10 million deficit. But when the bill moved to the House of Representatives, two conservative Woonsocket representatives refused to go along, and no amount of late-night negotiating could change their minds. Everyone finally gave up and went home.
The state has named a budget commission to grapple with Woonsocket’s money woes. Ultimately, though, a receiver may have to be appointed — which is to say, a person not beholden to the voters, who would nonetheless have the power to abrogate union contracts and do whatever else he or she deems necessary to erase the deficit. Incredibly, the two Woonsocket legislators have pushed for a receiver, despite the pain that it would likely bring their city.
Or maybe it’s not so incredible. It turns out that one of them, Jon Brien, is also on the national board of the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Although ALEC is probably best known for its support of the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, the conservative group has a very clear agenda for dealing with state budgets. It wants to shrink them. Although Brien has denied that he is applying the ALEC philosophy to his small city, it looks, in fact, as if that’s exactly what he is doing. It’s not pretty.
Woonsocket’s problems stem from the decision of Rhode Island’s previous governor, a Republican named Don Carcieri, to balance the state’s budget by cutting state aid to the cities. All of Rhode Island’s poorer cities had become dependent on that aid, so when the economy soured, they essentially ran out of money. Providence had to renegotiate the retirement benefits of its municipal workers. Central Falls actually sought bankruptcy court protection — and a receiver was put in charge of its finances. As for Woonsocket, its current difficulties came to light last fall when the school district revealed a huge, unanticipated budget shortfall.
The two Woonsocket legislators quickly decided to apply Rahm Emanuel’s famous maxim about never letting a crisis go to waste. The fact that their town had a big budget deficit meant that if they played their cards right, they could do a lot more than just fix the schools’ problem. They could actually shrink the town government!
And how does one go about doing that? By refusing to go along with tax increases and forcing the city to the edge of bankruptcy, thus raising the possibility of bringing in a receiver. “You never move faster than when you have a piano hanging over your head,” Brien told me. “The receiver is that piano.”
He went on to say that the municipal unions — police, firefighters, teachers — “have been given pensions and benefits the city can no longer afford” but have no incentive to renegotiate. But a receiver, with the wave of a magic wand, can instantly cut their pensions, and there isn’t a thing they can do about it. When I asked Brien how bad the pension problem was in Woonsocket, he told me he didn’t know. “I’m a state legislator,” he said. “I don’t get into that level of municipal finance.”
Here’s the rub. Pensions are not the core problem in Woonsocket. Yes, Woonsocket has a pension shortfall, but it is more manageable than many other places and has almost nothing to do with the current crisis. “The meme in Rhode Island is that if there is a problem, you can trace it back to the public employees,” says Bob Plain, a journalist who runs the Web site RIFuture.org. In Providence, the pensions, with annual cost of living adjustment of up to 6 percent, were, indeed, a huge problem. (Note: My brother used to work for Angel Taveras, the city’s mayor.) But that’s just not true in Woonsocket.
Yet, in Central Falls, the receiver took an ax to retiree benefits, cutting them by 55 percent, meaning that many retirees are now getting pensions of under $20,000. The receiver has also laid off city workers, closed the city’s library and shuttered a popular community center. This is the future Woonsocket now faces, thanks to its own legislators.
Shrinking government sounds appealing. We all have our favorite examples of silly regulations and bloated bureaucracies. But struggling municipalities like Woonsocket don’t have a lot of fat; cutting means reducing or eliminating programs that citizens depend on. And, in any case, in a democracy, the decision of what — and whether — to cut should rest with elected officials who are responsible to voters, not to an unelected receiver using bankruptcy law to unilaterally make cuts.
That may be the ALEC solution, but it shouldn’t be ours.
Related News
Conservative Nonprofit Acts as a Stealth Business Lobbyist (April 22, 2012)
Related in Opinion
Paul Krugman: Lobbyists, Guns and Money (March 26, 2012).
Editorial: The Big Money Behind State Laws (February 13, 2012)
Kicking back for vacations, Presidential style - the Right is Wrong (AGAIN)
Summer time vacations? There is a huge disconnect between what the right says, and the facts. Let's look at factcheck.org's comparison of first years in office vacation time for the most recent four presidents: H.W. Bush -- 40 days;
Bill Clinton -- 21 days;
George W. Bush -- 69 days;
Barak Obama -- 26 days
The right likes to generate fake outrage by mis-informing people about not only the number of days presidents are on vacation, but the costs of those vacations and other trips - the complete lies told by Michele Bachmann about the costs of a presidential trip to India was an example (although not a vacation, every trip seems to be treated similiarly). And it works - ignorant people get worked up, as we see below.
It is unrealistic to believe that anyone would do a job for four years without taking occasional time off - either playing golf for an afternoon, or taking an occasional few days vacation with their family. Do most of us have luxury vacations? No. But these are not conspicuous consumption vacations either; one recent 'vacation' was a brief visit back to the home of the first family in Chicago (although no brush cutting).
If you can't believe the right on this stuff.......why would you believe them on anything else? They are just not good at getting facts right, on the right. Sarah Palin campaigned for a good part of the time she was in office, and then quit part way through; who is she to criticize anyone else for how they spend their time in office? And Donald Trump? WHY would anyone, anywhere, ever at any time listen to birther / media whore Donald Trump who will do anything and say anything to get some attention? But the right does.
Here are a few of the more outrageous rumors about Obama, vacations, and other travel corrected by factcheck.org:
Did President Obama have his dog, Bo, flown to Maine in his own private jet for the family vacation?
No. The family and staff took two small jets because the airport couldn’t accommodate the usual presidential plane. Bo flew with several staffers.
Sept. 16, 2010
Is President Obama flying on Air Force One more than other presidents did? Is he being accompanied by more people on international trips?
Two chain e-mails suggesting that the president’s travel habits are more excessive than his predecessors are off base.
July 8, 2011
This one comes up a lot while the President is traveling:
Did President Obama secretly sign a law that makes it a crime to protest against him or ask him a question he doesn’t like?
No. He openly announced the signing of a bill overwhelmingly passed by Congress that slightly revises a 1971 law against trespassing into areas under Secret Service protection.
May 7, 2012
and from this factcheck.org article on Obama:
It’s worth mentioning that President Obama has also made 11 trips — all or part of 27 days — to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Frederick County, Md. Knoller, however, says he doesn’t count trips to Camp David as part of any presidents’ "vacation" time. But for the sake of comparison, President George W. Bush, made more trips to that country residence than Obama. According to Knoller, Bush made 25 trips — a total of 78 days — to Camp David in 2001.
But no matter how much time a president actually spends away from the official residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Knoller says that the commander in chief is never really off the clock. "I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation," Knoller told FactCheck.org in an e-mail. "The job – and its awesome powers and responsibilities – is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing."
and then there is this one from 2009:
Q: Did Michelle Obama and her daughters use taxpayer money to take a European vacation?
A: The first lady, her mother and her children did stay in Europe for a private vacation after the president completed an overseas trip on official business. However, no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.
Right wing perceptions just don't match up well with objective reality -- they COULD, but the right just doesn't like objective, fact-driven reality; it differs from what they choose to believe.
Bill Clinton -- 21 days;
George W. Bush -- 69 days;
Barak Obama -- 26 days
The right likes to generate fake outrage by mis-informing people about not only the number of days presidents are on vacation, but the costs of those vacations and other trips - the complete lies told by Michele Bachmann about the costs of a presidential trip to India was an example (although not a vacation, every trip seems to be treated similiarly). And it works - ignorant people get worked up, as we see below.
It is unrealistic to believe that anyone would do a job for four years without taking occasional time off - either playing golf for an afternoon, or taking an occasional few days vacation with their family. Do most of us have luxury vacations? No. But these are not conspicuous consumption vacations either; one recent 'vacation' was a brief visit back to the home of the first family in Chicago (although no brush cutting).
If you can't believe the right on this stuff.......why would you believe them on anything else? They are just not good at getting facts right, on the right. Sarah Palin campaigned for a good part of the time she was in office, and then quit part way through; who is she to criticize anyone else for how they spend their time in office? And Donald Trump? WHY would anyone, anywhere, ever at any time listen to birther / media whore Donald Trump who will do anything and say anything to get some attention? But the right does.
Here are a few of the more outrageous rumors about Obama, vacations, and other travel corrected by factcheck.org:
Did President Obama have his dog, Bo, flown to Maine in his own private jet for the family vacation?
No. The family and staff took two small jets because the airport couldn’t accommodate the usual presidential plane. Bo flew with several staffers.
Sept. 16, 2010
Is President Obama flying on Air Force One more than other presidents did? Is he being accompanied by more people on international trips?
Two chain e-mails suggesting that the president’s travel habits are more excessive than his predecessors are off base.
July 8, 2011
This one comes up a lot while the President is traveling:
Did President Obama secretly sign a law that makes it a crime to protest against him or ask him a question he doesn’t like?
No. He openly announced the signing of a bill overwhelmingly passed by Congress that slightly revises a 1971 law against trespassing into areas under Secret Service protection.
May 7, 2012
and from this factcheck.org article on Obama:
It’s worth mentioning that President Obama has also made 11 trips — all or part of 27 days — to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Frederick County, Md. Knoller, however, says he doesn’t count trips to Camp David as part of any presidents’ "vacation" time. But for the sake of comparison, President George W. Bush, made more trips to that country residence than Obama. According to Knoller, Bush made 25 trips — a total of 78 days — to Camp David in 2001.
But no matter how much time a president actually spends away from the official residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Knoller says that the commander in chief is never really off the clock. "I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation," Knoller told FactCheck.org in an e-mail. "The job – and its awesome powers and responsibilities – is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing."
and then there is this one from 2009:
Q: Did Michelle Obama and her daughters use taxpayer money to take a European vacation?
A: The first lady, her mother and her children did stay in Europe for a private vacation after the president completed an overseas trip on official business. However, no taxpayer money was used for the first family’s personal expenses.
Right wing perceptions just don't match up well with objective reality -- they COULD, but the right just doesn't like objective, fact-driven reality; it differs from what they choose to believe.
The rabid right wingers would do well to foam at the mouth less, and fact check a whole lot more.
But they won't. If they did, they would never nominate Mitt Romney.
Candidate Mitt R-Money, and Your Money
Monday, June 18, 2012
That was Bush.......right, Right? Romney and the GOP = Bush Redux
I found this Josh Horowitz article on HuffPo, which reminded me how eagerly the right wants to attribute Bush failures to Obama's administration, and how little flack Dubya takes for the actions that occurred on his watch, with his administration.
Where is the accountability of the AGs from the Bush administration in the halls of Congressional witch hunts by Republicans? Shouldn't EVERYONE involved in failed efforts be held accountable?
That should include Solyndra --- BEGUN BY GEORGE W. BUSH, and FAST AND FURIOUS, BEGUN BY GEORGE W. BUSH. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, a GEORGE W. BUSH initiative, modeled on his Texas initiative while governor (and that state is still in an utterly abysmal level of dysfunction, educationally) which was supported in the House by overwhelmingly Republicans - who now want to double down on it this year.
Romney is the Dubya terrible mistakes all over again, only worse, right down to the advisers, and the rumors that Jeb Bush might be his running mate. As the New York Times noted in :
"Jeb Bush and the Republican Amnesia"
The presidential candidates never tire of reminding us theirs is the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. That the modern version is, more than anything else, the party of Bush is something they prefer to omit.
The last two Republican presidents were members of the clan. Someone named Bush has been on the national ticket in six of the last eight elections.
But after spending eight years rallying behind every scheme of George W. Bush — the Medicare prescription drug program, No Child Left Behind, a trillion-dollar war based on false claims — Republicans now act as though they never met the guy. He's gone from Conquering Hero to Invisible Man.
If some Republicans had their way, however, there would be another Bush on this year's ticket, namely Jeb. Whenever speculation bubbles about a deadlocked convention turning to a unity candidate, his is the name at the top of the list of potential saviors.
Why? Because Jeb Bush makes any of the people who competed in the GOP primaries this year look like they should be running for coroner. He's an accomplished former two-term governor of a large swing state who is admired by the party's more conservative elements as well as its slightly less conservative ones.
He was rated the second best governor in America on fiscal matters by the Cato Institute, and he reaped plaudits for supporting charter schools, vouchers and other educational reforms. He won a place in the hearts of social conservatives by signing a law to keep Terry Schiavo from being taken off life support. He is popular among Hispanics, and not just because he married one of them.
But he has a huge liability: that unfortunate family connection, which is borderline radioactive. The only reason he could be taken seriously at all is that he can be portrayed as strikingly different from his delinquent brother: more serious, more intelligent, more able, less Texan. In their younger days, Jeb was always known as "the smart brother." George, says biographer Robert Draper, was "the family chucklehead."
That creates a strange dynamic. When Bobby and Teddy Kennedy ran for president, they did everything they could to evoke memories of brother Jack. If Jeb were to run, he'd have to treat George W. like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.
But the Bushes have some experience with that approach. When George W. made his White House bid, his campaign encouraged the perception of him as the true son and rightful heir — of Reagan, not George H.W. Bush. He confided, "I'm more like Ronald Reagan than my dad."
He said that "the biggest difference between me and my father is that he went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High" — omitting other notable differences, like his father being a decorated combat veteran, UN ambassador, CIA director and vice president.
So it is time for a reminder of what the right wing and the Chucklehead want to do to us all over again, with the same damned mistakes, and the same failure to learn from them, and the same absence of ideas or grasp of facts and objective reality.
from the HuffPo:
NRA, Not Obama, Is Real Threat to the Rule of Law
Josh Horowitz, Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Posted: 06/18/2012 7:04 am
With campaign season in full swing, movement conservatives are actively promoting a narrative about the Obama administration being a "threat to the rule of law." The lightning rod for much of this invective is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is facing a possible contempt of Congress citation for his refusal to turn over certain Department of Justice documents relating to the ATF's discontinued "Fast and Furious" operation on the southwest border. While Republicans' rift with Holder has been well chronicled, the architect of their messaging campaign has gone largely unnoticed.
When CBS News first broke the "Fast and Furious" story in February 2011, the National Rifle Association (NRA) wasted little time in spinning the ill-advised "gun-walking" strategy -- which actually began under the George W. Bush administration in 2006 -- as evidence that the Obama administration was a danger to "civil society" and "unprecedented in its arrogant disregard for the rule of law."
Give the NRA credit. It has mastered the art of projecting its biggest and most dangerous faults onto its political opponents. This is the organization, after all, that created "Stand Your Ground" laws, which allow gun-toters to shoot other Americans even when they could otherwise safely walk away from a public confrontation. This is also the organization that actively promotes the idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to shoot and kill their elected officials when they sense "tyranny." The NRA's accusations about the Obama administration amount to a staggering act of hypocrisy.
Where is the accountability of the AGs from the Bush administration in the halls of Congressional witch hunts by Republicans? Shouldn't EVERYONE involved in failed efforts be held accountable?
That should include Solyndra --- BEGUN BY GEORGE W. BUSH, and FAST AND FURIOUS, BEGUN BY GEORGE W. BUSH. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, a GEORGE W. BUSH initiative, modeled on his Texas initiative while governor (and that state is still in an utterly abysmal level of dysfunction, educationally) which was supported in the House by overwhelmingly Republicans - who now want to double down on it this year.
Romney is the Dubya terrible mistakes all over again, only worse, right down to the advisers, and the rumors that Jeb Bush might be his running mate. As the New York Times noted in :
"Jeb Bush and the Republican Amnesia"
The presidential candidates never tire of reminding us theirs is the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln. That the modern version is, more than anything else, the party of Bush is something they prefer to omit.
The last two Republican presidents were members of the clan. Someone named Bush has been on the national ticket in six of the last eight elections.
But after spending eight years rallying behind every scheme of George W. Bush — the Medicare prescription drug program, No Child Left Behind, a trillion-dollar war based on false claims — Republicans now act as though they never met the guy. He's gone from Conquering Hero to Invisible Man.
If some Republicans had their way, however, there would be another Bush on this year's ticket, namely Jeb. Whenever speculation bubbles about a deadlocked convention turning to a unity candidate, his is the name at the top of the list of potential saviors.
Why? Because Jeb Bush makes any of the people who competed in the GOP primaries this year look like they should be running for coroner. He's an accomplished former two-term governor of a large swing state who is admired by the party's more conservative elements as well as its slightly less conservative ones.
He was rated the second best governor in America on fiscal matters by the Cato Institute, and he reaped plaudits for supporting charter schools, vouchers and other educational reforms. He won a place in the hearts of social conservatives by signing a law to keep Terry Schiavo from being taken off life support. He is popular among Hispanics, and not just because he married one of them.
But he has a huge liability: that unfortunate family connection, which is borderline radioactive. The only reason he could be taken seriously at all is that he can be portrayed as strikingly different from his delinquent brother: more serious, more intelligent, more able, less Texan. In their younger days, Jeb was always known as "the smart brother." George, says biographer Robert Draper, was "the family chucklehead."
That creates a strange dynamic. When Bobby and Teddy Kennedy ran for president, they did everything they could to evoke memories of brother Jack. If Jeb were to run, he'd have to treat George W. like the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.
But the Bushes have some experience with that approach. When George W. made his White House bid, his campaign encouraged the perception of him as the true son and rightful heir — of Reagan, not George H.W. Bush. He confided, "I'm more like Ronald Reagan than my dad."
He said that "the biggest difference between me and my father is that he went to Greenwich Country Day and I went to San Jacinto Junior High" — omitting other notable differences, like his father being a decorated combat veteran, UN ambassador, CIA director and vice president.
So it is time for a reminder of what the right wing and the Chucklehead want to do to us all over again, with the same damned mistakes, and the same failure to learn from them, and the same absence of ideas or grasp of facts and objective reality.
from the HuffPo:
NRA, Not Obama, Is Real Threat to the Rule of Law
Josh Horowitz, Executive Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Posted: 06/18/2012 7:04 am
With campaign season in full swing, movement conservatives are actively promoting a narrative about the Obama administration being a "threat to the rule of law." The lightning rod for much of this invective is U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who is facing a possible contempt of Congress citation for his refusal to turn over certain Department of Justice documents relating to the ATF's discontinued "Fast and Furious" operation on the southwest border. While Republicans' rift with Holder has been well chronicled, the architect of their messaging campaign has gone largely unnoticed.
When CBS News first broke the "Fast and Furious" story in February 2011, the National Rifle Association (NRA) wasted little time in spinning the ill-advised "gun-walking" strategy -- which actually began under the George W. Bush administration in 2006 -- as evidence that the Obama administration was a danger to "civil society" and "unprecedented in its arrogant disregard for the rule of law."
Give the NRA credit. It has mastered the art of projecting its biggest and most dangerous faults onto its political opponents. This is the organization, after all, that created "Stand Your Ground" laws, which allow gun-toters to shoot other Americans even when they could otherwise safely walk away from a public confrontation. This is also the organization that actively promotes the idea that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to shoot and kill their elected officials when they sense "tyranny." The NRA's accusations about the Obama administration amount to a staggering act of hypocrisy.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Greece and Egypt are voting on Sunday - Should We?
Why do we always vote on Tuesday anyway?
Ok, so when I first kicked around writing about this topic -- I didn't know why we voted on Tuesday either. But I like history, I had heard of this bill and this movement, so I became curious. Blogging is where you all get to see the outcome of what makes me curious. But this video is a better explanation than anything I could write:
From Penigma, we would like to honor those of our readers who are fathers on this holiday dedicated to their celebration.
The artist who personifies the American popular art during the period during which the designation of Father's Day as a holiday originated, for me at least, is the late great depicter of Americana, Norman Rockwell.
Here are a few of the paternal images from Rockwell, for inspiration.
I hope that makes it more special for you, to have it celebrated by so many Dad's, a sort of unity of Dad's across borders, something we can share as
common ground.
Third Sunday in June:
June 17
 El Salvador[33] |  Guatemala[34] | ||||
June 21 / first day of summer
Lebanon[35]
Egypt
Jordan
Syria
UgandaJune 23
 Nicaragua |  Poland | ||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)