...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* When are folks going to realize that Scott Walker isn't working for the people who vote for him, he's working for the republican billionaires who bought/bribed him to pass the laws they want. Like lowering those billionaries taxes, killing middle calss unions and passing laws that deregulate pollution laws so the can pollute with out being fined, This is exactly why the gop had "Citizens United" passed through the supreme court, so billionaires and their corporations can run America - not the citizens.
* Walker had full knowledge of it I am sure and would gladly sign the bill behind closed doors. He doesn't want investigators sniffing around with all the dirt he has on him. It would be devastating to Wisconsin if this is passed. He should be forced to take it out or some of his republican legislature should "put the word out" on him nationwide to ruin his presidential aspirations. He is so arrogant, he will not bend to the will of the people. Period. The only way to hurt this guy is to come out with proven dirt to muddy his waters for president. Then, he couldn't blame it on democrats and union people. If they don't, it will show on their integrity and the next election, vote them ALL out of office!
* This is nuts. You people voted in a criminal. He wants his secrets hidden from us Makes you wonder why ?
* ... Its just baffed me how walker got into office the first time. Let alone and got into office for the 2nd time.
* The Koch Bros money bought it for him.
* I can understand why any republiCON would want all their records private ...they are so shady and crooked. Walker is given $1.5M from Menard in dark money contributions and Wisconsin turns around and gives Menard $1.8M in tax payer funded economic development money ... Isn't this the quid pro quo relationship that Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy said would never take place? ... They said it was hard to believe how today politicians could walk out the door with bags of cash as payoffs ... No its now worse ... They are getting contributions and turning around and giving the money back to donors with tax payer dollars ... The dark money contributor isn't even using their own money ... This is what is also going on in Texas
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wisconsin's Walker in hot seat over open-records restrictions
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker would not spell out his plan to stop the proposal that puts a lock on nearly all public records in the state.
By Amy R. Connolly, July 4, 2015
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker vowed to make changes to budget provisions that severely restrict public access to nearly all government records, but fell short of providing any specifics to his plans.
Walker, a presumptive Republican presidential candidate, said he will "make changes" to the current proposal that drew harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle, including the state's Republican attorney general.
"Prior to the budget going to the full Legislature for action, Gov. Walker plans to work with legislative leaders to make changes to the provisions included in the current proposal related to the state's open records law," Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said. She declined further comment.
The measure -- tucked in a package of budget amendments introduced by Republican Joint Finance Committee co-chairs state Rep. John Nygren and state Sen. Alberta Darling -- renders secret most communications among lawmakers and policymakers on the state and local level. It provides draft filings of all legislation to no longer be public. Nygren and Darling said they do not know who included the provisions in the budget. The measure passed 12-4 Thursday along party lines.
The chief author of Wisconsin's open records law, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, told the Journal Sentinel the proposed changes would be a "devastating assault on open government in Wisconsin."
"It would be really harmful to the public, so I hope they take it out of the budget," said Adelman, a former Democratic lawmaker.
The new provisions comes as Walker faces a legal battle for allegedly refusing to disclose public records regarding language changes to the state's higher education guiding mission.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Gee, Donald, you didn't "think" at all or you wouldn't have said what you did.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Oh they hurt your poor feelings, eh Donald. That's what happens when you shoot from the lip.
* He is being hit where it hurts: the pocket. Even billionaires can feel pain there.
* Just because he's made a lot of money and he's a showman, it doesn't exclude him from being moronic from time to time.
* In short, the Donald expected a lot of hissing and booing and a spike in the polls. He wasn't ready for a smack upside his head. Maybe Mr Bankruptcy Trump isn't the great business man he believes himself to be.
* Prediction: If Trump keeps speaking before engaging his brain, his brand is going to suffer more.
* When it's convenient to blame any ethnic group for political advancement, a republican regressive will do it. Trump bit on the idea that all right wing terror radio is right. He actually believed their talking points and used it to access a platform for his campaign. People are tired of having specific ethnicities being blamed for crime. Why doesn't he comment on the highest number of criminals being white? Is that the elephant in the room no one wants to speak about? He's using the same crime narrative used for centuries against ethnic minorities whether it was Native Americans, African American or Latin immigrants. Quit being a coward, Donald, and talk about the elephant in the room.
* It's amazing how much traction a blowhard reality-show carnival barker can garner. The day he started that "birther" nonsense was the day I knew he was just another fool.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump: I didn't expect business backlash to be "quite this severe"
By Reena Flores, July 4, 2015
On the heels of several major corporations distancing themselves from Donald Trump's various business interests, the Republican presidential candidate admitted Saturday that he didn't think the corporate backlash to his inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants would be "quite this severe."
"I knew it was going to be bad because I was told this. All my life I have been told this: If you are successful, you don't run for office," Trump said in an interview on Fox News, addressing the recent spate of businesses that have severed their relationships with his brand. "I didn't know it was going to be quite this severe, but I really knew it was going to be bad."
During his presidential campaign announcement last month, Trump emphasized the need to curtail immigration from the southern border and criticized Mexican immigrants for "bringing crime" and being "rapists."
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," the Republican presidential candidate said in June. "They're sending people that have lots of problems ... they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Trump's comments have since led a spate of corporations -- including Macy's, NBC Universal, Univision and mattress company Serta -- to disavow their partnerships with the business mogul.
The Republican presidential candidate has since defied those companies -- even suing Univision for $500 million because of their dropped pageant contract -- and defended his statements on immigration.
"It seems like I'm sort of the whipping post because I bring it up. And I don't understand whether you are liberal or whether you are conservative or whether you are Republican, Democrat -- why wouldn't you talk about a problem?" Trump said Saturday. "The crime is raging. It's violent, and people don't want to even talk about it. If you talk about it, you are a racist. I don't understand it."
Some Republicans vying for the White House, like former New York Gov. George Pataki, rallied against Trump because of his comments about the Latino population -- a growing voter bloc with increasing political clout. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, himself the son of Cuban immigrants, also criticized the business man and reality television star for statements that were "not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive."
But Trump had a few scathing words for his rivals in the crowded 2016 Republican field.
"I know Pataki well, and, you know, he's a sad figure. He's got zero in the polls, and he was a terrible governor of New York. Terrible," Trump said. "If he would have run again, he would have failed."
"And, you know, as far as Rubio," he continued, "he is very weak on immigration, and I have been saying that for a long time about him."
The GOP's current establishment front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has also weighed in on what he called Trump's "extraordinarily ugly types of comments."
"He's not a stupid guy, so I don't assume that he thinks every Mexican crossing the border is a rapist," Bush told reporters Saturday in New Hampshire. "So he's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention to his campaign, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign, and it doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values."
Trump's beliefs, according to Bush, are "wrong" and "way out of the mainstream of what Republicans think." And when asked if the comments struck a personal chord with Bush and his wife, who is Mexican, the Florida Republican said, "Of course it does, absolutely."
"Politically, we're going to win when we're hopeful and optimistic and big and broad rather than just 'grrrrrrr,' just angry all the time," Bush continued. "This is an exaggerated form of that, and there is no tolerance for it."
These political reprimands might seem par for the course to Trump, but criticism from his business partners seems more unexpected. On Fox News, Trump also said that he was "very surprised" at NASCAR, which recently said it would move a series of banquets and conferences -- previously scheduled to be held at the Trump National Doral Miami resort -- to a different location.
"Because I have so many fans at NASCAR. I love the NASCAR people. I'm really surprised with NASCAR to be honest with you," Trump said. "You know, I have properties in the best locations. The property you are talking about in the case of NASCAR is Trump National Doral, which is probably one of the top resorts in the world. If they don't go, somebody else does, so, you know, it's not a big deal."
All in all, Trump said, his presidential run so far has been "bad for my brand."
"For the people who say I'm doing it for my brand - this isn't good for my brand. I think it's bad for my brand," he said. "You know, maybe I'm leading in polls, but this is certainly not good. I lose customers, I lose people.
"I had one of the top shows on television, 'The Apprentice,' and I decided not to do it because I wanted to do this. I give up hundreds of millions of dollars of deals where I'm doing this. Then you hear about NASCAR, and you hear about NBC, and you hear about, you know, different people that drop Trump because Trump wants safety in the United States. If you think of it, what am I doing? I say let's make our country safe, and people are offended. It's incredible to me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Oh they hurt your poor feelings, eh Donald. That's what happens when you shoot from the lip.
* He is being hit where it hurts: the pocket. Even billionaires can feel pain there.
* Just because he's made a lot of money and he's a showman, it doesn't exclude him from being moronic from time to time.
* In short, the Donald expected a lot of hissing and booing and a spike in the polls. He wasn't ready for a smack upside his head. Maybe Mr Bankruptcy Trump isn't the great business man he believes himself to be.
* Prediction: If Trump keeps speaking before engaging his brain, his brand is going to suffer more.
* When it's convenient to blame any ethnic group for political advancement, a republican regressive will do it. Trump bit on the idea that all right wing terror radio is right. He actually believed their talking points and used it to access a platform for his campaign. People are tired of having specific ethnicities being blamed for crime. Why doesn't he comment on the highest number of criminals being white? Is that the elephant in the room no one wants to speak about? He's using the same crime narrative used for centuries against ethnic minorities whether it was Native Americans, African American or Latin immigrants. Quit being a coward, Donald, and talk about the elephant in the room.
* It's amazing how much traction a blowhard reality-show carnival barker can garner. The day he started that "birther" nonsense was the day I knew he was just another fool.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Donald Trump: I didn't expect business backlash to be "quite this severe"
By Reena Flores, July 4, 2015
On the heels of several major corporations distancing themselves from Donald Trump's various business interests, the Republican presidential candidate admitted Saturday that he didn't think the corporate backlash to his inflammatory comments about Mexican immigrants would be "quite this severe."
"I knew it was going to be bad because I was told this. All my life I have been told this: If you are successful, you don't run for office," Trump said in an interview on Fox News, addressing the recent spate of businesses that have severed their relationships with his brand. "I didn't know it was going to be quite this severe, but I really knew it was going to be bad."
During his presidential campaign announcement last month, Trump emphasized the need to curtail immigration from the southern border and criticized Mexican immigrants for "bringing crime" and being "rapists."
"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," the Republican presidential candidate said in June. "They're sending people that have lots of problems ... they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."
Trump's comments have since led a spate of corporations -- including Macy's, NBC Universal, Univision and mattress company Serta -- to disavow their partnerships with the business mogul.
The Republican presidential candidate has since defied those companies -- even suing Univision for $500 million because of their dropped pageant contract -- and defended his statements on immigration.
"It seems like I'm sort of the whipping post because I bring it up. And I don't understand whether you are liberal or whether you are conservative or whether you are Republican, Democrat -- why wouldn't you talk about a problem?" Trump said Saturday. "The crime is raging. It's violent, and people don't want to even talk about it. If you talk about it, you are a racist. I don't understand it."
Some Republicans vying for the White House, like former New York Gov. George Pataki, rallied against Trump because of his comments about the Latino population -- a growing voter bloc with increasing political clout. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, himself the son of Cuban immigrants, also criticized the business man and reality television star for statements that were "not just offensive and inaccurate, but also divisive."
But Trump had a few scathing words for his rivals in the crowded 2016 Republican field.
"I know Pataki well, and, you know, he's a sad figure. He's got zero in the polls, and he was a terrible governor of New York. Terrible," Trump said. "If he would have run again, he would have failed."
"And, you know, as far as Rubio," he continued, "he is very weak on immigration, and I have been saying that for a long time about him."
The GOP's current establishment front-runner, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has also weighed in on what he called Trump's "extraordinarily ugly types of comments."
"He's not a stupid guy, so I don't assume that he thinks every Mexican crossing the border is a rapist," Bush told reporters Saturday in New Hampshire. "So he's doing this to inflame and to incite and to draw attention to his campaign, which seems to be his organizing principle of his campaign, and it doesn't represent the Republican Party or its values."
Trump's beliefs, according to Bush, are "wrong" and "way out of the mainstream of what Republicans think." And when asked if the comments struck a personal chord with Bush and his wife, who is Mexican, the Florida Republican said, "Of course it does, absolutely."
"Politically, we're going to win when we're hopeful and optimistic and big and broad rather than just 'grrrrrrr,' just angry all the time," Bush continued. "This is an exaggerated form of that, and there is no tolerance for it."
These political reprimands might seem par for the course to Trump, but criticism from his business partners seems more unexpected. On Fox News, Trump also said that he was "very surprised" at NASCAR, which recently said it would move a series of banquets and conferences -- previously scheduled to be held at the Trump National Doral Miami resort -- to a different location.
"Because I have so many fans at NASCAR. I love the NASCAR people. I'm really surprised with NASCAR to be honest with you," Trump said. "You know, I have properties in the best locations. The property you are talking about in the case of NASCAR is Trump National Doral, which is probably one of the top resorts in the world. If they don't go, somebody else does, so, you know, it's not a big deal."
All in all, Trump said, his presidential run so far has been "bad for my brand."
"For the people who say I'm doing it for my brand - this isn't good for my brand. I think it's bad for my brand," he said. "You know, maybe I'm leading in polls, but this is certainly not good. I lose customers, I lose people.
"I had one of the top shows on television, 'The Apprentice,' and I decided not to do it because I wanted to do this. I give up hundreds of millions of dollars of deals where I'm doing this. Then you hear about NASCAR, and you hear about NBC, and you hear about, you know, different people that drop Trump because Trump wants safety in the United States. If you think of it, what am I doing? I say let's make our country safe, and people are offended. It's incredible to me."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hope everybody is having a safe Fourth!
.........................................................................................................
Friday, July 3, 2015
"... Confederate flag supporters didn't know much about the actual Confederacy."
...................................................................................................................................................................
Southern whites who know basic facts about the Civil War don’t support the Confederate flag
By Dara Lind, July 3, 2015
Supporters of displaying the Confederate battle flag in public places like South Carolina's state house often argue that it's about "heritage, not hate." But as political scientists Spencer Piston and Logan Strother write for the Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog, there is actual data measuring how Confederate flag supporters and opponents each feel about the South and its history. And, frankly, it doesn't look good for the "heritage, not hate" argument.
In 2004, the Survey Research Laboratory at Georgia State University surveyed 522 white Georgia residents about a version of the Georgia state flag that included the Confederate battle flag. (This was the official Georgia state flag until 2001; in 2004, there was a referendum in which Georgia voters could vote for it to be reinstated.) And they found Confederate flag supporters didn't know much about the actual Confederacy.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3840318/heritage%20not%20hate.jpg)
Georgia State University
The survey asked three questions about the Civil War — identifying Union general William Tecumseh Sherman, who famously burned his way through the state, and naming any two Civil War battles. A third of people who got all three questions right supported keeping the Confederate battle flag on the Georgia flag. Three quarters of those who got none of them right did. (This wasn't just because less-educated Georgians were more likely to support the Confederate flag, either; the researchers controlled for education level and income, and there was still a correlation between liking the Confederate flag more and knowing less about the war.)
So, how about the hate side of the equation? More bad news for the "heritage, not hate" slogan. Confederate flag supporters were much more likely to oppose interracial dating, and to believe that African Americans aren't discriminated against for jobs, than opponents were.
Supporters of the Confederate flag were more likely to say that they "felt close to other Southerners" — which is some evidence for the heritage side of the equation. But to make sure that feeling "close to other Southerners" wasn't a euphemism for disliking black Southerners, the researchers took a second look controlling for anti-black attitudes. When racism was accounted for, someone who supported the Confederate battle flag wasn't any more likely to say he felt close to other Southerners than someone who opposed it.
As the researchers point out in the Post, this is an 11-year-old survey here. It may not reflect the debate in 2015. But then again, Confederate flag supporters were saying it was about "heritage, not hate" then too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Southern whites who know basic facts about the Civil War don’t support the Confederate flag
By Dara Lind, July 3, 2015
Supporters of displaying the Confederate battle flag in public places like South Carolina's state house often argue that it's about "heritage, not hate." But as political scientists Spencer Piston and Logan Strother write for the Washington Post's Monkey Cage blog, there is actual data measuring how Confederate flag supporters and opponents each feel about the South and its history. And, frankly, it doesn't look good for the "heritage, not hate" argument.
In 2004, the Survey Research Laboratory at Georgia State University surveyed 522 white Georgia residents about a version of the Georgia state flag that included the Confederate battle flag. (This was the official Georgia state flag until 2001; in 2004, there was a referendum in which Georgia voters could vote for it to be reinstated.) And they found Confederate flag supporters didn't know much about the actual Confederacy.
Georgia State University
The survey asked three questions about the Civil War — identifying Union general William Tecumseh Sherman, who famously burned his way through the state, and naming any two Civil War battles. A third of people who got all three questions right supported keeping the Confederate battle flag on the Georgia flag. Three quarters of those who got none of them right did. (This wasn't just because less-educated Georgians were more likely to support the Confederate flag, either; the researchers controlled for education level and income, and there was still a correlation between liking the Confederate flag more and knowing less about the war.)
So, how about the hate side of the equation? More bad news for the "heritage, not hate" slogan. Confederate flag supporters were much more likely to oppose interracial dating, and to believe that African Americans aren't discriminated against for jobs, than opponents were.
Supporters of the Confederate flag were more likely to say that they "felt close to other Southerners" — which is some evidence for the heritage side of the equation. But to make sure that feeling "close to other Southerners" wasn't a euphemism for disliking black Southerners, the researchers took a second look controlling for anti-black attitudes. When racism was accounted for, someone who supported the Confederate battle flag wasn't any more likely to say he felt close to other Southerners than someone who opposed it.
As the researchers point out in the Post, this is an 11-year-old survey here. It may not reflect the debate in 2015. But then again, Confederate flag supporters were saying it was about "heritage, not hate" then too.
...................................................................................................................................................................
We can kiss goodbye the lands that belong to "We The People" if the Kochs get their hands on them!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The koch brothers are all about raping and plundering our lands. Poisoning our waters, contaminating our soil. Its the national park designation is what protects our lands from monsters like them. He says we just need to maintain the parks we have now? Well if they dont get polluted and striped away, nature is pretty good at maintaining its self. Thank god those two old queens the kochs are getting old.......
* Google koch industries EPA violations, theres a ton of them. Such a sorry lot they are.
* National (and State) Parks are an inheritance passed down to our chidren and grandchildren. Why is it that we, the people, should give away (or sell) one of the most valuable assets we own? If you haven't done so, stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon or drive the Road to the Sun in Glacier National Park. No one should be able to own or destroy these amazing Parks that belong to all of us.
* Science said long ago, when we skin, denude, deforest and pave Earth's wildness, scientifically, wild, natural ecosystems, like our national parks, we're "suicidal". Wildness is after all, the real planet Earth that seeded all life and maintains all life, today.
* When you elect Republicans this is what you get, oligarchs that want to destroy the earth to make a few bucks
* I mean seriously, America really needs to break its' Koch-habit, once & for all !
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch-Backed Group Calls For No More National Parks
By Claire Moser, July 3, 2014
Just in time for the Fourth of July — when millions of people across the country will visit America’s national parks and other public lands — the Koch brothers are rolling out their latest campaign against these treasured places: pushing for no more national parks.
Read the whole story at ThinkProgress
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The koch brothers are all about raping and plundering our lands. Poisoning our waters, contaminating our soil. Its the national park designation is what protects our lands from monsters like them. He says we just need to maintain the parks we have now? Well if they dont get polluted and striped away, nature is pretty good at maintaining its self. Thank god those two old queens the kochs are getting old.......
* Google koch industries EPA violations, theres a ton of them. Such a sorry lot they are.
* National (and State) Parks are an inheritance passed down to our chidren and grandchildren. Why is it that we, the people, should give away (or sell) one of the most valuable assets we own? If you haven't done so, stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon or drive the Road to the Sun in Glacier National Park. No one should be able to own or destroy these amazing Parks that belong to all of us.
* Science said long ago, when we skin, denude, deforest and pave Earth's wildness, scientifically, wild, natural ecosystems, like our national parks, we're "suicidal". Wildness is after all, the real planet Earth that seeded all life and maintains all life, today.
* When you elect Republicans this is what you get, oligarchs that want to destroy the earth to make a few bucks
* I mean seriously, America really needs to break its' Koch-habit, once & for all !
...................................................................................................................................................................
Koch-Backed Group Calls For No More National Parks
By Claire Moser, July 3, 2014
Just in time for the Fourth of July — when millions of people across the country will visit America’s national parks and other public lands — the Koch brothers are rolling out their latest campaign against these treasured places: pushing for no more national parks.
Read the whole story at ThinkProgress
...................................................................................................................................................................
Things are getting interesting....
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I'm a minority, and I remember HRC's pettiness, and Bill's racial dog whistling when BHO challenged her inevitibility. Is she a better option, by far, than any of the idiots and bigots in the GOP primary clown car? Yes. Will I support Bernie Sanders until the very end of the Democratic primary? You bet your @ss I will.
* Sanders is not that fragile; he can respond to innuendo by sticking to the issues. Rand and Sanders are speaking on issues that mean something to the country. The centrist candidates may touch upon income equality, for example, hoping that they can attract a vote without alienating the opposing view. Sanders directly states that taxes should be higher on the rich, and that Citizens United should be overturned by legislation or a Constitutional amendment. The nation typically goes with something namby pamby in the middle, but that may not be the case forever. Sanders needs to articulate his issues and why they are good for the country and the people. Insult by Clinton is likely to help his case because it shows "business as usual."
* ALL of this ,I mean "All of it" is crap, this media stuff and your keystrokes does not do a damn thing... The man needs money to stand for us..... DONATE!!!
* Calling Sanders "extreme" qualifies as a joke. Sanders' domestic politics are indistinguishable from those of a mainstream Democrat of the 1970s. America's come so far Right since then that BS is considered fringe. The joke's on us.
* They are going to have a pretty tough time painting Sanders as "extreme" when a vast and growing number of Americans are agreeing with his message. There is nothing "extreme" about re-balancing the American economy to favor the majority of working Americans, as opposed to rigging the entire game in favor of billionaire hedge-funders. There is nothing extreme about livable wages, or decent jobs created here in the US that stay here in the US. There is nothing extreme about single-payer, universal healthcare, which MOST Americans want. What is extreme is the way the Democratic party has become Diet Republican shills for Wall Street, smiling and "feeling our pain" as they gut the middle class and send our jobs to China and Vietnam. To expect the American people to gleefully sign up for another round of Neoliberal economic backstabbing is foolish and ignorant. The American people have been jerked around and scammed six ways from Sunday since 1980. More of the same will not cut it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Bernie Sanders smear campaign has begun
It’s been relatively easy so far for Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidate giving Hillary Clinton the most trouble so far on the road to the presidential primaries. But that’s because Clinton’s squad hasn’t deployed yet. Hillary’s got shooters. She rolls way deeper than Bernie, and one has to assume that a good-sized pocket of the Democratic Party establishment waits like a sleeper cell to be called on to attack Sanders if necessary.
It’s a sign of Sanders’ success that one of Clinton’s hitters was set on the ascendant candidate last Thursday, with Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to test out some new talking points to address Sanders’ astounding crowds and climbing poll numbers. McCaskill went with the “acknowledge-then-conflate” maneuver. Sanders’ crowds are at times dwarfing those of any candidate in either party. This cannot be denied. So Team Clinton has to try to make that clear sign of success a liability.
“Well, you know, Rand Paul’s father got massive crowds, Ron Paul,” she said. “He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. It’s not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.”
Ooooh, gotcha: Big crowds mean you’re an extremist. So the fewer people you have, the more reasonable you are. And, so, I guess if you stand at a podium before no one, just an empty field, and give a stump speech you’re the most reasonable and fringe-averse candidate ever to run for office.
Is this the best the Clinton team has right now? McCaskill endorsed Clinton for president more than two years ago, way back in 2013, but she apparently didn’t spend a whole lot of that time working on her potential talking points. It feels a little embarrassing as a tactic. Its fallacious, clumsy logic seems more suited for the YouTube comments section: You know who else got big crowds? Hitler.
McCaskill’s attack obviously wasn’t that crudely drawn, but it falls apart almost immediately when any scrutiny is offered on the trio she presents: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Bernie Sanders. One of these is not like the others.
Sanders’ domestic economic platform, his campaign’s bread and butter, is mostly a return to mid-century, postwar policies, infused with social democratic ideas from places like Sweden, where social democrats gained a majority in parliament 75 years ago.
What Sanders proposes is not new, and it’s not particularly radical. It’s just radical-seeming given our decades-long turn toward hyper-capitalism and neoliberalism (which happened to a large degree under President Bill Clinton). The Swedish “socialism” that Sanders favors is capitalism with boundaries. Sweden, with a population less than that of North Carolina, has birthed an impressive list of global companies under its “extreme” “socialism”: Volvo, IKEA, Spotify, Saab, H&M, Skype, Ericsson, AstraZeneca, and many more. Terrifying! So extreme!
Now compare that to the worldview of Ron Paul, who’s been proffering something that’s never been tried before, the marketization of virtually everything and the evaporation of the State to little more than a police and judicial apparatus to enforce contracts. Paul says that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all unconstitutional and should be abolished. The Civil Rights Act, too. Speaking of civil rights, he had a special hatred of Martin Luther King for years until, one assumes, he had to temper his King hatred for the spotlight he was stepping into in the 2000s. Paul has shown himself to be a pretty thoroughly racist politician who’s prone to conspiracy theories, even trutherism.
Pat Buchanan is a Christian white nationalist. Try doing a “Pat Buchanan” Google search and not hitting racist, anti-semitic insanity. In the wake of the Emanuel AME terrorist attack in Charleston, Buchanan penned a column in which he defended the surviving symbol of the Confederacy, the slave-owning rebels’ battle flag, writing that “the battle flag is not so much a symbol of hatred as it is an object of hatred, a target of hatred.”
That’s because Buchanan is really, really into the whole white persecution thing. In his defense of the Confederate flag, he calls the national clamor for its removal in South Carolina a “cultural lynch mob.” White folks are the ones really being besieged, says Buchanan, subject to all that virulent “reverse racism” and losing our country to black and brown folks. (In that way, his rhetoric is sometimes scarcely distinguishable from that of Dylann Roof, who spoke from the same white-man-as-besieged lexicon and whose racist flag Buchanan leapt out to defend.)
McCaskill boasts of what she describes as a perfectly centrist position in the Senate. During her 2012 reelection campaign, she said she was “proud of being ranked the most moderate senator,” number 50 on the ideological spectrum in the hundred-person body. In her desperate attempt to convince Missourians during her 2012 reelection campaign that she was conservative enough against Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, McCaskill ran a television ad with the crafty slogan, “right in the middle is right for Missouri,” a phrase which employs the word “right” twice.
It would stand to reason, then, that someone plum in the middle of the ideological room could, from her singular position, gauge the distance of ideological deviation from the middle point, where she proudly resides. Given the way she sells her own perfect centrism, McCaskill might even be more highly attuned to the breadth of the political spectrum than most, since she’d need to constantly readjust her positions and political decisions to maintain her place “right in the middle.”
We have no way of knowing whether or not the Clinton team signed off on this means of attack, if the Sanders-as-extremist line will be something returned to as his success continues. If so, it will be hard for some to hear from the political family most responsible for making Sanders’ fairly standard postwar liberalism an extreme position. Bill Clinton helmed the rightward turn of the party in 1992, and now Hillary can call anyone who didn’t follow Bill’s lead an “extremist.” It compounds the already problematic dynastic dimension of Clinton’s campaign. The Clintons, preparing for the coronation, also get to police what is acceptable in the party, with Hillary the enforcer of the law Bill laid down? Continuing to call Sanders an “extremist” might only convince many Democrats that the Clintons consider the party theirs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I'm a minority, and I remember HRC's pettiness, and Bill's racial dog whistling when BHO challenged her inevitibility. Is she a better option, by far, than any of the idiots and bigots in the GOP primary clown car? Yes. Will I support Bernie Sanders until the very end of the Democratic primary? You bet your @ss I will.
* Sanders is not that fragile; he can respond to innuendo by sticking to the issues. Rand and Sanders are speaking on issues that mean something to the country. The centrist candidates may touch upon income equality, for example, hoping that they can attract a vote without alienating the opposing view. Sanders directly states that taxes should be higher on the rich, and that Citizens United should be overturned by legislation or a Constitutional amendment. The nation typically goes with something namby pamby in the middle, but that may not be the case forever. Sanders needs to articulate his issues and why they are good for the country and the people. Insult by Clinton is likely to help his case because it shows "business as usual."
* ALL of this ,I mean "All of it" is crap, this media stuff and your keystrokes does not do a damn thing... The man needs money to stand for us..... DONATE!!!
* Calling Sanders "extreme" qualifies as a joke. Sanders' domestic politics are indistinguishable from those of a mainstream Democrat of the 1970s. America's come so far Right since then that BS is considered fringe. The joke's on us.
* They are going to have a pretty tough time painting Sanders as "extreme" when a vast and growing number of Americans are agreeing with his message. There is nothing "extreme" about re-balancing the American economy to favor the majority of working Americans, as opposed to rigging the entire game in favor of billionaire hedge-funders. There is nothing extreme about livable wages, or decent jobs created here in the US that stay here in the US. There is nothing extreme about single-payer, universal healthcare, which MOST Americans want. What is extreme is the way the Democratic party has become Diet Republican shills for Wall Street, smiling and "feeling our pain" as they gut the middle class and send our jobs to China and Vietnam. To expect the American people to gleefully sign up for another round of Neoliberal economic backstabbing is foolish and ignorant. The American people have been jerked around and scammed six ways from Sunday since 1980. More of the same will not cut it.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Bernie Sanders smear campaign has begun
A Hillary Clinton surrogate took the campaign's first real shot at Bernie Sanders last week. But it ain't working.
By Matthew Pulver, July 2, 2015It’s been relatively easy so far for Senator Bernie Sanders, the candidate giving Hillary Clinton the most trouble so far on the road to the presidential primaries. But that’s because Clinton’s squad hasn’t deployed yet. Hillary’s got shooters. She rolls way deeper than Bernie, and one has to assume that a good-sized pocket of the Democratic Party establishment waits like a sleeper cell to be called on to attack Sanders if necessary.
It’s a sign of Sanders’ success that one of Clinton’s hitters was set on the ascendant candidate last Thursday, with Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to test out some new talking points to address Sanders’ astounding crowds and climbing poll numbers. McCaskill went with the “acknowledge-then-conflate” maneuver. Sanders’ crowds are at times dwarfing those of any candidate in either party. This cannot be denied. So Team Clinton has to try to make that clear sign of success a liability.
“Well, you know, Rand Paul’s father got massive crowds, Ron Paul,” she said. “He got the same size crowds. Pat Buchanan got massive crowds. It’s not unusual for someone who has an extreme message to have a following.”
Ooooh, gotcha: Big crowds mean you’re an extremist. So the fewer people you have, the more reasonable you are. And, so, I guess if you stand at a podium before no one, just an empty field, and give a stump speech you’re the most reasonable and fringe-averse candidate ever to run for office.
Is this the best the Clinton team has right now? McCaskill endorsed Clinton for president more than two years ago, way back in 2013, but she apparently didn’t spend a whole lot of that time working on her potential talking points. It feels a little embarrassing as a tactic. Its fallacious, clumsy logic seems more suited for the YouTube comments section: You know who else got big crowds? Hitler.
McCaskill’s attack obviously wasn’t that crudely drawn, but it falls apart almost immediately when any scrutiny is offered on the trio she presents: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, and Bernie Sanders. One of these is not like the others.
Sanders’ domestic economic platform, his campaign’s bread and butter, is mostly a return to mid-century, postwar policies, infused with social democratic ideas from places like Sweden, where social democrats gained a majority in parliament 75 years ago.
What Sanders proposes is not new, and it’s not particularly radical. It’s just radical-seeming given our decades-long turn toward hyper-capitalism and neoliberalism (which happened to a large degree under President Bill Clinton). The Swedish “socialism” that Sanders favors is capitalism with boundaries. Sweden, with a population less than that of North Carolina, has birthed an impressive list of global companies under its “extreme” “socialism”: Volvo, IKEA, Spotify, Saab, H&M, Skype, Ericsson, AstraZeneca, and many more. Terrifying! So extreme!
Now compare that to the worldview of Ron Paul, who’s been proffering something that’s never been tried before, the marketization of virtually everything and the evaporation of the State to little more than a police and judicial apparatus to enforce contracts. Paul says that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all unconstitutional and should be abolished. The Civil Rights Act, too. Speaking of civil rights, he had a special hatred of Martin Luther King for years until, one assumes, he had to temper his King hatred for the spotlight he was stepping into in the 2000s. Paul has shown himself to be a pretty thoroughly racist politician who’s prone to conspiracy theories, even trutherism.
Pat Buchanan is a Christian white nationalist. Try doing a “Pat Buchanan” Google search and not hitting racist, anti-semitic insanity. In the wake of the Emanuel AME terrorist attack in Charleston, Buchanan penned a column in which he defended the surviving symbol of the Confederacy, the slave-owning rebels’ battle flag, writing that “the battle flag is not so much a symbol of hatred as it is an object of hatred, a target of hatred.”
That’s because Buchanan is really, really into the whole white persecution thing. In his defense of the Confederate flag, he calls the national clamor for its removal in South Carolina a “cultural lynch mob.” White folks are the ones really being besieged, says Buchanan, subject to all that virulent “reverse racism” and losing our country to black and brown folks. (In that way, his rhetoric is sometimes scarcely distinguishable from that of Dylann Roof, who spoke from the same white-man-as-besieged lexicon and whose racist flag Buchanan leapt out to defend.)
McCaskill boasts of what she describes as a perfectly centrist position in the Senate. During her 2012 reelection campaign, she said she was “proud of being ranked the most moderate senator,” number 50 on the ideological spectrum in the hundred-person body. In her desperate attempt to convince Missourians during her 2012 reelection campaign that she was conservative enough against Todd “legitimate rape” Akin, McCaskill ran a television ad with the crafty slogan, “right in the middle is right for Missouri,” a phrase which employs the word “right” twice.
It would stand to reason, then, that someone plum in the middle of the ideological room could, from her singular position, gauge the distance of ideological deviation from the middle point, where she proudly resides. Given the way she sells her own perfect centrism, McCaskill might even be more highly attuned to the breadth of the political spectrum than most, since she’d need to constantly readjust her positions and political decisions to maintain her place “right in the middle.”
We have no way of knowing whether or not the Clinton team signed off on this means of attack, if the Sanders-as-extremist line will be something returned to as his success continues. If so, it will be hard for some to hear from the political family most responsible for making Sanders’ fairly standard postwar liberalism an extreme position. Bill Clinton helmed the rightward turn of the party in 1992, and now Hillary can call anyone who didn’t follow Bill’s lead an “extremist.” It compounds the already problematic dynastic dimension of Clinton’s campaign. The Clintons, preparing for the coronation, also get to police what is acceptable in the party, with Hillary the enforcer of the law Bill laid down? Continuing to call Sanders an “extremist” might only convince many Democrats that the Clintons consider the party theirs.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... you can continue to be a part of the pain and anxiety and costly emotional heartache, or serve as part of the joy." Me, I opt for the joy!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I am speechless. Powerful article. Wow. Thank You for sharing
* Wow Amazing article. Thank You. I have no idea how those opposed to gay marriage could read what you wrote and continue without "turning the page". I predict the day will come when their day of reckoning is in front of them and they will realize they all had it wrong and in the process they have made so many peoples lives so painful.
* ... a lot of religious folks forgot or ignored"judge not lst you be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyself."
* in what way does gay people marrying "affect" christians that all the non-christian marriages don't? like atheists and agnostics and buddhists
* There's something called separation of church and state. Marriage is and has always meant many different things, not one. Learn to love your neighbor. Preach love, not intolerance (christianity is about loving everybody if you haven't noticed).
* Your psycho religion has brought more death and destruction, than people coming out and being honest with who and what they are. It's superstitious nuts like you that have controlled society for far too long. And I, for one, am loving seeing it meet its demise...FINALLY!
* I apologize for my fellow Christians. I am embarrassed of so many of the comments here some chose to leave. Some Christians do not grasp the concept of "Christ Like or Following Christ." They simply think verse beating others will lead them to Christ through fire and brimstone. I apologize for their lack of understanding of "not one sin is greater than the other" otherwise their focus should be Adultery etc. I pray for my fellow Christians they will ask Christ for forgiveness and show them how to better apply unconditional love to all.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Impact of Marriage Equality We're Not Discussing, But Should
By John Duffy, July 2, 2015
A quick scan of the cable news channels or the Twittersphere shows clearly that the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage has drawn sharp feelings from both sides of the issue. Most of these reactions were easily predictable. People across all media are exhibiting their feelings loudly, as the issue touches on so many potent areas of life: the political, the ethical, the moral, the religious.
But as I sift through my own feelings, I find I have a different reaction than those that seem to be most loudly expressed. I am a therapist, and I see this issue through the lens of emotion. And homosexuality and gay marriage are highly emotional issues. And we therapists possess the privilege of a unique perspective on the emotional elements of most any issue. And the emotional elements are crucial in understanding the issue overall.
For I have sat across from the young man fighting against his truth, his gay-ness, with every fiber of his being. Because it will disappoint his parents. Because he won't be accepted or loved, but rejected. Because he has been taught that who he knows himself to be is wrong. So he fights. He fights against his very nature. The resulting anxiety and depression run so very deep.
I have sat across from the teenage girl who recognizes who she is, but loathes the fact of it, and loathes herself as a result. Because it makes her life so hard, so odd, so weird. It estranges from people she once considered safe. Thoughts of suicide hover in the shadows all around her. And yet in every conceivable way, she is better-than-fine: bright, driven, beautiful, athletic, funny. And gay.
And I have sat across from the man who has lived a lie his entire life, hiding beneath the trappings of 'normalcy': wife, children, house, couple of dogs. Family man. But he is tortured nonetheless. For he is gay as well, and he and those around him, he projects, would find this to be unacceptable. And now an entire family is drawn into the dark.
Unfortunately, I could share countless other stories, all sharing this theme: to be gay, to be attracted to someone, to love them organically, is not just unacceptable, but shameful.
Shameful.
With just a moment's reflection, we all know that the forced constriction of anything authentic and genuine in ourselves will prove to be incalculably damaging. We should live in a place where one's truth carries not a hint of shame, but joy. Only joy.
And everyone, every single one of us, deserves that feeling.
So this ruling suggests another wave in a sea change. For many people, many of my own clients in fact, can now comfort themselves with the fact that what they sense and know about themselves, this undeniable core essence of their being, is now lawful and allowable and acceptable by society's standards. And sure, that's good.
But it goes beyond just that, right? Because for the majority of us, our loves and attractions are actually celebrated, from crushes to dates to proms to weddings. And we don't really need to give it a thought. There is a wild emotional divide between private shame and public celebration, and it is critical.
I like to think that a generation from now, if our sons or daughters are drawn to someone, male or female, and fall in love with that someone, that we will want to share in the joy that love will bring to their lives, and to our own.
Making ourselves unavailable to that joy ensures, and has ensured, the opposite: fear and judgment and ego, enough to keep therapists like me flush with clients for generations, treating toxic, wholly unnecessary feelings of shame and depression and relentless anxiety about something that is organic and authentic and actually quite simple.
This Supreme Court ruling is another step toward the openness we need as a society, openness that will undoubtedly have strong legs. Fewer pills will be popped to numb unnecessary pain. Fewer people will be compelled to live a lie their entire lives. Fewer people will feel a need to shield their deep reality in shame. Fewer lives will end tragically. This is no small deal.
So I celebrate today, for the emotional well-being of every gay person, man or woman,
who has suffered their love in lieu of celebration. I celebrate the deep breath they can finally draw, and the joyful, well-appointed weddings on the horizon.
Of course, upon sober reflection, we all know that legislation does not flip a switch on feelings, attitudes and emotions. These biases lag well behind.
So if you are the parent, brother, sister, teacher or friend of a gay man or woman and you find yourself bitter today, let me encourage you to turn a page. Allow yourself to open your heart and mind to them, for them and for yourself. Because the train has left the station, and you can continue to be a part of the pain and anxiety and costly emotional heartache, or serve as part of the joy.
Because love truly IS love. Simple as that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I am speechless. Powerful article. Wow. Thank You for sharing
* Wow Amazing article. Thank You. I have no idea how those opposed to gay marriage could read what you wrote and continue without "turning the page". I predict the day will come when their day of reckoning is in front of them and they will realize they all had it wrong and in the process they have made so many peoples lives so painful.
* ... a lot of religious folks forgot or ignored"judge not lst you be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyself."
* in what way does gay people marrying "affect" christians that all the non-christian marriages don't? like atheists and agnostics and buddhists
* There's something called separation of church and state. Marriage is and has always meant many different things, not one. Learn to love your neighbor. Preach love, not intolerance (christianity is about loving everybody if you haven't noticed).
* Your psycho religion has brought more death and destruction, than people coming out and being honest with who and what they are. It's superstitious nuts like you that have controlled society for far too long. And I, for one, am loving seeing it meet its demise...FINALLY!
* I apologize for my fellow Christians. I am embarrassed of so many of the comments here some chose to leave. Some Christians do not grasp the concept of "Christ Like or Following Christ." They simply think verse beating others will lead them to Christ through fire and brimstone. I apologize for their lack of understanding of "not one sin is greater than the other" otherwise their focus should be Adultery etc. I pray for my fellow Christians they will ask Christ for forgiveness and show them how to better apply unconditional love to all.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Impact of Marriage Equality We're Not Discussing, But Should
By John Duffy, July 2, 2015
A quick scan of the cable news channels or the Twittersphere shows clearly that the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage has drawn sharp feelings from both sides of the issue. Most of these reactions were easily predictable. People across all media are exhibiting their feelings loudly, as the issue touches on so many potent areas of life: the political, the ethical, the moral, the religious.
But as I sift through my own feelings, I find I have a different reaction than those that seem to be most loudly expressed. I am a therapist, and I see this issue through the lens of emotion. And homosexuality and gay marriage are highly emotional issues. And we therapists possess the privilege of a unique perspective on the emotional elements of most any issue. And the emotional elements are crucial in understanding the issue overall.
For I have sat across from the young man fighting against his truth, his gay-ness, with every fiber of his being. Because it will disappoint his parents. Because he won't be accepted or loved, but rejected. Because he has been taught that who he knows himself to be is wrong. So he fights. He fights against his very nature. The resulting anxiety and depression run so very deep.
I have sat across from the teenage girl who recognizes who she is, but loathes the fact of it, and loathes herself as a result. Because it makes her life so hard, so odd, so weird. It estranges from people she once considered safe. Thoughts of suicide hover in the shadows all around her. And yet in every conceivable way, she is better-than-fine: bright, driven, beautiful, athletic, funny. And gay.
And I have sat across from the man who has lived a lie his entire life, hiding beneath the trappings of 'normalcy': wife, children, house, couple of dogs. Family man. But he is tortured nonetheless. For he is gay as well, and he and those around him, he projects, would find this to be unacceptable. And now an entire family is drawn into the dark.
Unfortunately, I could share countless other stories, all sharing this theme: to be gay, to be attracted to someone, to love them organically, is not just unacceptable, but shameful.
Shameful.
With just a moment's reflection, we all know that the forced constriction of anything authentic and genuine in ourselves will prove to be incalculably damaging. We should live in a place where one's truth carries not a hint of shame, but joy. Only joy.
And everyone, every single one of us, deserves that feeling.
So this ruling suggests another wave in a sea change. For many people, many of my own clients in fact, can now comfort themselves with the fact that what they sense and know about themselves, this undeniable core essence of their being, is now lawful and allowable and acceptable by society's standards. And sure, that's good.
But it goes beyond just that, right? Because for the majority of us, our loves and attractions are actually celebrated, from crushes to dates to proms to weddings. And we don't really need to give it a thought. There is a wild emotional divide between private shame and public celebration, and it is critical.
I like to think that a generation from now, if our sons or daughters are drawn to someone, male or female, and fall in love with that someone, that we will want to share in the joy that love will bring to their lives, and to our own.
Making ourselves unavailable to that joy ensures, and has ensured, the opposite: fear and judgment and ego, enough to keep therapists like me flush with clients for generations, treating toxic, wholly unnecessary feelings of shame and depression and relentless anxiety about something that is organic and authentic and actually quite simple.
This Supreme Court ruling is another step toward the openness we need as a society, openness that will undoubtedly have strong legs. Fewer pills will be popped to numb unnecessary pain. Fewer people will be compelled to live a lie their entire lives. Fewer people will feel a need to shield their deep reality in shame. Fewer lives will end tragically. This is no small deal.
So I celebrate today, for the emotional well-being of every gay person, man or woman,
who has suffered their love in lieu of celebration. I celebrate the deep breath they can finally draw, and the joyful, well-appointed weddings on the horizon.
Of course, upon sober reflection, we all know that legislation does not flip a switch on feelings, attitudes and emotions. These biases lag well behind.
So if you are the parent, brother, sister, teacher or friend of a gay man or woman and you find yourself bitter today, let me encourage you to turn a page. Allow yourself to open your heart and mind to them, for them and for yourself. Because the train has left the station, and you can continue to be a part of the pain and anxiety and costly emotional heartache, or serve as part of the joy.
Because love truly IS love. Simple as that.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Thursday, July 2, 2015
"... Christian faith is only fragile when it is unwilling to engage difference with open hearts and open minds." It's time to open your minds!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The entire conversation around gay marriage from the religious right is that allowing other people to decide who they want to marry will somehow threaten Christians, damage straight marriage, and weaken the entire moral fabric of society. This is the exact definition of "fragility" that the author is referring to.
* White people and Christian people live a lie in this country. They convinced themselves they are moral and the majority, when in fact they are not moral and not in the majority any longer. The lie white people live is that there is no racism directed toward black people. That there is no white privilege. The lie the Christians live is that they are in fact Christians. That they can be Christians an hate minorities and other religions. That they can be Christians and allow poverty. That they can be Christians and judge others... So when you take a white Christian and pair that with the racist, sexist, greed mongering attitude of Conservatives... well you get a travesty of delusion. We've all seen it, anyone who watches these comment pages has seen the fear and intolerance, the greed and vindictiveness that passes for Conservative thinking.
* Perhaps they are the christian wrong.
* The white southern baptists are not from the heavens. They salute slavery, dis the Pope on climate change,, divide the Christians into political separates,dis science because of not understanding science. This is the devil folks.
* When you are used to a position of privilege, equality can seem like oppression. This has been a consistent theme of the extreme religious right. Their Christmas is somehow ruined when someone opts to say "Happy Holidays" rather than the less inclusive "Merry Christmas." They screamed oppression when they were no longer allowed to force kids to pray in school, but of course would scream bloody murder if kids were force to, for example, do Islamic prayers. When they are told that it is fine to have Christian displays on government property (such as a Nativity scene), but only if other religions are also allowed to represent their beliefs, they scream that they are oppressed. And when gay people are granted the same rights as straight people to marry whom they choose, it is somehow oppression of straight people or "shoving beliefs down our throat." Fortunately, this behavior represents only a small subset of Christians, but sadly, they seem to be the loudest.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Christian Fragility
By Susan M. Shaw, July 2, 2015
Anyone in the U.S. with a social media account has undoubtedly seen the outcry from many members of the Christian Right over Friday's Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. What many Americans celebrated as a triumph of love and social progress, many Christian conservatives decried as evidence of the country's moral decline and a precursor to the persecution of Christian pastors who preach against homosexuality or refuse to perform a same-sex wedding.
The force of this outcry is not simply about religious convictions. It's also about what I'm terming "Christian fragility."
In 2011 Robin DiAngelo published a pivotal article on "White Fragility" (International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, Vol 3 (3) (2011) pp 54-70). According to DiAngelo, white fragility is an emotional/psychological state for white people in which racial stress is intolerable. This racial stress arises when white folks are confronted by their own racial privilege or find themselves in situations that are not racially familiar. This state leads to a number of defensive maneuvers--including outward displays of emotion, argumentation, silence, and withdrawal--in order to restore racial equilibrium.
I see many parallels between DiAngelo's description of white fragility and the responses of certain conservative Christians to the marriage equality decision, as well as other social, political, and educational issues of the so-called "Culture Wars."
White dominance allows most whites to live in social environments that insulate them from challenging encounters with ideas or people who differ from themselves. Within this dominant social environment, whites come to expect social comfort and a sense of belonging and superiority. When this comfort is disrupted, whites are often at a loss because they have not had to build skills for constructive engagement with difference. They may become defensive, positioning themselves as victims of antiracist work and co-opting the rhetoric of violence to describe their experiences of being challenged on racial privilege.
Similarly, many conservative Christians segregate much of their lives into enclaves with people who share their values. Within the sharp subcultural boundaries of conservative Christianity, they insulate themselves from ideas and people who may issue direct and sustained challenges to their beliefs. They also often learn from their leaders that they know the Truth with certainty, that opposing beliefs are dangerous, and that they must hold fast against the onslaught of false ideas.
Since the 1980s, many conservative Christians have enjoyed political prominence and wide social acceptance of some of their ideals. As late as the early 2000s, most Americans opposed marriage equality. That framework provided an opportunity for conservative Christians to come to see some of their beliefs as normative, natural, and inherent, reinforced by broader support across the nation. Within this sphere of social comfort, many conservative Christians were not ready for the speed with which national norms around marriage equality changed and disrupted the assumptions of Christian entitlement and heteronormativity.
Unprepared to engage in constructive dialogue about marriage equality, many conservative Christians retreated into the defensive maneuvers of fragility--anger, fear, argumentation, resistance--as a way to try to reestablish an equilibrium. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called for conservative Christians to "resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat." Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin called for a constitutional amendment to allow states to define marriage. Louisiana's governor, Bobby Jindal, warned that the Court's decision "will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision." Conservative Christian pastors railed against the decision in sermons that pitted God against the Supreme Court.
I'm guessing those who have never been insiders to conservative Christianity may wonder why the extreme and occasionally apocalyptic language about the marriage equality decision. As one who grew up a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, however, I do understand the fear and discomfort of Christian fragility. Rigid belief systems do not prepare people for encounters with difference. When one believes there is only one right way, one Truth, then the options for dialogue are limited. And the fear of turning away from The Truth is very real.
What is ignored in Christian fragility, however, is the social privilege accorded Christians of all stripes in this country--our holidays are embedded in the work calendar; we can easily find foods our religion allows us to eat; we can be elected President of the United States. By positioning conservative Christians as victims of religious oppression, many conservative Christians can then also ignore the privileges that come with the intersections of their Christian faith with heterosexuality and the very real consequences of heterosexism on the lives of LGBQ people--real violence, real economic disadvantage, real hate crimes--that are complicated and intensified as we include intersections with race, gender, gender identity, ability, age, and social class. The dominance of heterosexuality over other forms of sexual identity becomes obscured in arguments about the anticipated victimization of conservative Christians for their beliefs about homosexuality.
While the discomfort of disequilibrium seems intolerable for many conservative Christians, a new wave of conservative Christians has embraced the struggle to understand difference, and some have even come to support marriage equality. Many have offered alternative readings of the Bible that, while still holding the Bible in highest regard, also afford new understandings of LGBQ people and marriage equality. Christian fragility provides a framework for understanding the intense reactions of some conservative Christians to marriage equality, but Christian faith is only fragile when it is unwilling to engage difference with open hearts and open minds.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The entire conversation around gay marriage from the religious right is that allowing other people to decide who they want to marry will somehow threaten Christians, damage straight marriage, and weaken the entire moral fabric of society. This is the exact definition of "fragility" that the author is referring to.
* White people and Christian people live a lie in this country. They convinced themselves they are moral and the majority, when in fact they are not moral and not in the majority any longer. The lie white people live is that there is no racism directed toward black people. That there is no white privilege. The lie the Christians live is that they are in fact Christians. That they can be Christians an hate minorities and other religions. That they can be Christians and allow poverty. That they can be Christians and judge others... So when you take a white Christian and pair that with the racist, sexist, greed mongering attitude of Conservatives... well you get a travesty of delusion. We've all seen it, anyone who watches these comment pages has seen the fear and intolerance, the greed and vindictiveness that passes for Conservative thinking.
* Perhaps they are the christian wrong.
* The white southern baptists are not from the heavens. They salute slavery, dis the Pope on climate change,, divide the Christians into political separates,dis science because of not understanding science. This is the devil folks.
* When you are used to a position of privilege, equality can seem like oppression. This has been a consistent theme of the extreme religious right. Their Christmas is somehow ruined when someone opts to say "Happy Holidays" rather than the less inclusive "Merry Christmas." They screamed oppression when they were no longer allowed to force kids to pray in school, but of course would scream bloody murder if kids were force to, for example, do Islamic prayers. When they are told that it is fine to have Christian displays on government property (such as a Nativity scene), but only if other religions are also allowed to represent their beliefs, they scream that they are oppressed. And when gay people are granted the same rights as straight people to marry whom they choose, it is somehow oppression of straight people or "shoving beliefs down our throat." Fortunately, this behavior represents only a small subset of Christians, but sadly, they seem to be the loudest.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Christian Fragility
By Susan M. Shaw, July 2, 2015
Anyone in the U.S. with a social media account has undoubtedly seen the outcry from many members of the Christian Right over Friday's Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality. What many Americans celebrated as a triumph of love and social progress, many Christian conservatives decried as evidence of the country's moral decline and a precursor to the persecution of Christian pastors who preach against homosexuality or refuse to perform a same-sex wedding.
The force of this outcry is not simply about religious convictions. It's also about what I'm terming "Christian fragility."
In 2011 Robin DiAngelo published a pivotal article on "White Fragility" (International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, Vol 3 (3) (2011) pp 54-70). According to DiAngelo, white fragility is an emotional/psychological state for white people in which racial stress is intolerable. This racial stress arises when white folks are confronted by their own racial privilege or find themselves in situations that are not racially familiar. This state leads to a number of defensive maneuvers--including outward displays of emotion, argumentation, silence, and withdrawal--in order to restore racial equilibrium.
I see many parallels between DiAngelo's description of white fragility and the responses of certain conservative Christians to the marriage equality decision, as well as other social, political, and educational issues of the so-called "Culture Wars."
White dominance allows most whites to live in social environments that insulate them from challenging encounters with ideas or people who differ from themselves. Within this dominant social environment, whites come to expect social comfort and a sense of belonging and superiority. When this comfort is disrupted, whites are often at a loss because they have not had to build skills for constructive engagement with difference. They may become defensive, positioning themselves as victims of antiracist work and co-opting the rhetoric of violence to describe their experiences of being challenged on racial privilege.
Similarly, many conservative Christians segregate much of their lives into enclaves with people who share their values. Within the sharp subcultural boundaries of conservative Christianity, they insulate themselves from ideas and people who may issue direct and sustained challenges to their beliefs. They also often learn from their leaders that they know the Truth with certainty, that opposing beliefs are dangerous, and that they must hold fast against the onslaught of false ideas.
Since the 1980s, many conservative Christians have enjoyed political prominence and wide social acceptance of some of their ideals. As late as the early 2000s, most Americans opposed marriage equality. That framework provided an opportunity for conservative Christians to come to see some of their beliefs as normative, natural, and inherent, reinforced by broader support across the nation. Within this sphere of social comfort, many conservative Christians were not ready for the speed with which national norms around marriage equality changed and disrupted the assumptions of Christian entitlement and heteronormativity.
Unprepared to engage in constructive dialogue about marriage equality, many conservative Christians retreated into the defensive maneuvers of fragility--anger, fear, argumentation, resistance--as a way to try to reestablish an equilibrium. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee called for conservative Christians to "resist and reject judicial tyranny, not retreat." Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin called for a constitutional amendment to allow states to define marriage. Louisiana's governor, Bobby Jindal, warned that the Court's decision "will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision." Conservative Christian pastors railed against the decision in sermons that pitted God against the Supreme Court.
I'm guessing those who have never been insiders to conservative Christianity may wonder why the extreme and occasionally apocalyptic language about the marriage equality decision. As one who grew up a Southern Baptist fundamentalist, however, I do understand the fear and discomfort of Christian fragility. Rigid belief systems do not prepare people for encounters with difference. When one believes there is only one right way, one Truth, then the options for dialogue are limited. And the fear of turning away from The Truth is very real.
What is ignored in Christian fragility, however, is the social privilege accorded Christians of all stripes in this country--our holidays are embedded in the work calendar; we can easily find foods our religion allows us to eat; we can be elected President of the United States. By positioning conservative Christians as victims of religious oppression, many conservative Christians can then also ignore the privileges that come with the intersections of their Christian faith with heterosexuality and the very real consequences of heterosexism on the lives of LGBQ people--real violence, real economic disadvantage, real hate crimes--that are complicated and intensified as we include intersections with race, gender, gender identity, ability, age, and social class. The dominance of heterosexuality over other forms of sexual identity becomes obscured in arguments about the anticipated victimization of conservative Christians for their beliefs about homosexuality.
While the discomfort of disequilibrium seems intolerable for many conservative Christians, a new wave of conservative Christians has embraced the struggle to understand difference, and some have even come to support marriage equality. Many have offered alternative readings of the Bible that, while still holding the Bible in highest regard, also afford new understandings of LGBQ people and marriage equality. Christian fragility provides a framework for understanding the intense reactions of some conservative Christians to marriage equality, but Christian faith is only fragile when it is unwilling to engage difference with open hearts and open minds.
...................................................................................................................................................................
George Takei's experience trumps Justice Thomas's "suggestion".
...................................................................................................................................................................
George Takei to Clarence Thomas: The government can take our dignity. They did it to me.
By Tez Clark, July 1, 2015
George Takei is not buying Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's suggestion that the government cannot take or bestow dignity on its citizens.
This morning, Takei published an op-ed entitled, "Denying our rights denies our dignity." In it, the Star Trek actor took issue with the following line from Thomas's dissent in last week's historic same-sex marriage ruling: "Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them."
Takei, who is Japanese-American, provided a personal counterexample to the justice's claim by detailing his experience living in an internment camp during World War II. Focusing on the harsh living conditions, Takei recalled:
Read the full op-ed here on MSNBC.
...................................................................................................................................................................
George Takei to Clarence Thomas: The government can take our dignity. They did it to me.
By Tez Clark, July 1, 2015
George Takei is not buying Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's suggestion that the government cannot take or bestow dignity on its citizens.
This morning, Takei published an op-ed entitled, "Denying our rights denies our dignity." In it, the Star Trek actor took issue with the following line from Thomas's dissent in last week's historic same-sex marriage ruling: "Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them."
Takei, who is Japanese-American, provided a personal counterexample to the justice's claim by detailing his experience living in an internment camp during World War II. Focusing on the harsh living conditions, Takei recalled:
We were denied adequate medicines, shelter and supplies. I remember as a child looking up toward a U.S. flag in the room, as we recited the Pledge of Allegiance, those ironic words echoing, "With liberty, and justice for all."...Takei is a noted activist for marriage equality and LGBTQ rights, and has previously received awards from the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD.
To say that the government does not bestow or grant dignity does not mean it cannot succeed in stripping it away through the imposition of unequal laws and deprivation of due process
Read the full op-ed here on MSNBC.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... GOP officials have an incentive to leave Americans with the impression that Republicans won’t simply be able to run roughshod ..." Don't kid yourself, however, that won't stop them from trying or even succeeding!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The treasonous GOPER nuclear option is all that society has been dealing with, since the day they darkened Congress. So what else is news? It would be great if there are some anti GOPER ballistic missiles on standby, in case they decide to create more of their treasonous havoc on society.
* I guess things are going so well lately, we have to find something with which to scare ourselves. From what I've seen so far, there is zero indication that any of the Republicans running will ascend to the presidency. Further, Republicans have approx. 24 Senate seats up for reelection in 2016. (Dems have 10). Republicans at this point have more to worry about -- ie, keeping a Senate majority -- than we do.
* you are right on about the different republican groups but the thing that brings them together to vote for or against legislation is fear. fear of being primaried and removed from office. then we have the dems who vote against the president because they are clueless.
* Never trust a republican when it comes to something they say they're not going to do - see McCrory, NC, Snyder, MI, Walker, WI and just about every republican everywhere. Of course they're going to deny it now - if they admitted it it would give Democrats another thing to run on - a vote for them will mean they'll get rid of _____— (fill in the blank - ACA, social security, etc.). Quite frankly they should run on this doom and gloom scenario anyway, because we could use anything to boost our often anemic turnout.
* The extremely limited "nuclear option" Senator Reid arranged came in response to years of republican filibusters staged for no reason but to spite a popular Democrat who had the additional sin of having a good, natural tan. Federal courts were disastrously backlogged due to a lack of justices, and bureaus and departments were limping along without heads and secretaries. All for petty spite. And now the same source of all that petty spite dissembles with projection and feigned indignation. This is my surprised look.
* Honestly, with the freakshow brewing in the GOP corner of the Presidential Election, I find it highly doubtful that any of them win. Also, the map for 2016 already benefits democrats.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A GOP ‘nuclear option’ would bring sweeping consequences
By Steve Benen, July 2, 2015
If Americans elected a Republican White House and a Republican Congress next year, a sharp, national turn to the far-right would be obvious, but there would still be some limits. Most measures would still need Senate approval, and the most radical GOP ideas would struggle in the face of Democratic filibusters.
But what if a newly invigorated Republican majority decided to scrap legislative filibusters so GOP lawmakers could simply do as they pleased?
Late last week, Jeb Bush said he “would certainly consider” getting rid of filibusters altogether – executing a new “nuclear option” – in order to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scott Walker was even more enthusiastic about the idea, saying he would “absolutely” pursue such a strategy if it helped him dismantle the nation’s health care system.
This week, as Bloomberg Politics reported, two more Republican presidential hopefuls – Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina – said they, too, would urge GOP senators to rewrite Senate rules in order to “repeal Obamacare.”
Republican senators themselves, however, say they’re not interested. The Hill reported this week:
In theory, that should effectively end the conversation, but there’s still a little more to it.
For now, it’s largely an academic exercise, speculating about a hypothetical. But imagine if Republicans found themselves in 2017 and 2018 in the same boat as Democrats for most of 2009 and 2010 – American voters gave them control of the levers of power, but their agenda was stymied by the minority.
Is it possible that Republicans might change their mind about filibusters after a few months or years of Democratic obstructionism? Of course it is. Paul Waldman had a good piece on this yesterday for the Washington Post.
GOP leaders are no doubt aware that their party’s agenda is not popular and that the party overall has a well-deserved reputation for radicalism. It’s in the Republicans’ interest to leave Americans with the impression that policymaking in Washington is slow, difficult, and prone to gridlock. “We can vote for Republicans,” mainstream voters are supposed to think, “because Democrats will be there to keep them from going too far.”
And so, before the 2016 elections, GOP officials have an incentive to leave Americans with the impression that Republicans won’t simply be able to run roughshod, passing every right-wing idea that pops into their minds.
But come 2017, would a powerful GOP controlling all the levers of power go in a different direction?
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* The treasonous GOPER nuclear option is all that society has been dealing with, since the day they darkened Congress. So what else is news? It would be great if there are some anti GOPER ballistic missiles on standby, in case they decide to create more of their treasonous havoc on society.
* I guess things are going so well lately, we have to find something with which to scare ourselves. From what I've seen so far, there is zero indication that any of the Republicans running will ascend to the presidency. Further, Republicans have approx. 24 Senate seats up for reelection in 2016. (Dems have 10). Republicans at this point have more to worry about -- ie, keeping a Senate majority -- than we do.
* you are right on about the different republican groups but the thing that brings them together to vote for or against legislation is fear. fear of being primaried and removed from office. then we have the dems who vote against the president because they are clueless.
* Never trust a republican when it comes to something they say they're not going to do - see McCrory, NC, Snyder, MI, Walker, WI and just about every republican everywhere. Of course they're going to deny it now - if they admitted it it would give Democrats another thing to run on - a vote for them will mean they'll get rid of _____— (fill in the blank - ACA, social security, etc.). Quite frankly they should run on this doom and gloom scenario anyway, because we could use anything to boost our often anemic turnout.
* The extremely limited "nuclear option" Senator Reid arranged came in response to years of republican filibusters staged for no reason but to spite a popular Democrat who had the additional sin of having a good, natural tan. Federal courts were disastrously backlogged due to a lack of justices, and bureaus and departments were limping along without heads and secretaries. All for petty spite.
* Honestly, with the freakshow brewing in the GOP corner of the Presidential Election, I find it highly doubtful that any of them win. Also, the map for 2016 already benefits democrats.
...................................................................................................................................................................
A GOP ‘nuclear option’ would bring sweeping consequences
By Steve Benen, July 2, 2015
If Americans elected a Republican White House and a Republican Congress next year, a sharp, national turn to the far-right would be obvious, but there would still be some limits. Most measures would still need Senate approval, and the most radical GOP ideas would struggle in the face of Democratic filibusters.
But what if a newly invigorated Republican majority decided to scrap legislative filibusters so GOP lawmakers could simply do as they pleased?
Late last week, Jeb Bush said he “would certainly consider” getting rid of filibusters altogether – executing a new “nuclear option” – in order to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Scott Walker was even more enthusiastic about the idea, saying he would “absolutely” pursue such a strategy if it helped him dismantle the nation’s health care system.
This week, as Bloomberg Politics reported, two more Republican presidential hopefuls – Rick Perry and Carly Fiorina – said they, too, would urge GOP senators to rewrite Senate rules in order to “repeal Obamacare.”
Republican senators themselves, however, say they’re not interested. The Hill reported this week:
Senate Republicans appear to be closing the door on gutting the filibuster, brushing aside calls from GOP presidential hopefuls Jeb Bush and Scott Walker to consider lowering the 60-vote threshold for repealing ObamaCare.Even Ted Cruz is cool to the idea, telling Hugh Hewitt this week, “I believe ending the legislative filibuster would ultimately undermine conservative principles.” The Club for Growth also voiced skepticism.
Sources close to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) say there’s virtually no chance he will go along with abolishing the filibuster, something he has strongly criticized in the past.
In theory, that should effectively end the conversation, but there’s still a little more to it.
For now, it’s largely an academic exercise, speculating about a hypothetical. But imagine if Republicans found themselves in 2017 and 2018 in the same boat as Democrats for most of 2009 and 2010 – American voters gave them control of the levers of power, but their agenda was stymied by the minority.
Is it possible that Republicans might change their mind about filibusters after a few months or years of Democratic obstructionism? Of course it is. Paul Waldman had a good piece on this yesterday for the Washington Post.
[C]onsider this scenario. It’s the spring of 2017, just months after Republicans achieved their victory at the polls. President Walker (or Rubio, or Bush) is moving to implement the agenda that he ran on. Republicans in Congress are eager to pass the bills they’ve been fantasizing about for the last eight years. And there’s a full docket of them: tax cuts, a national ban on abortions after the 20th week of a woman’s pregnancy, eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, forbidding the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, lightening Wall Street’s terrible regulatory burden, block granting safety net programs, and, of course, the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Yet Democrats and their filibuster stand in the way of it all.What’s more, let’s not discount the possibility that Senate Republicans are … how do I put this gently … fibbing.
It isn’t hard to imagine that the pressure from Republican legislators, the party’s base and a new president eager to make his mark, all of whom would be urging McConnell to get rid of the filibuster, would be overwhelming.
GOP leaders are no doubt aware that their party’s agenda is not popular and that the party overall has a well-deserved reputation for radicalism. It’s in the Republicans’ interest to leave Americans with the impression that policymaking in Washington is slow, difficult, and prone to gridlock. “We can vote for Republicans,” mainstream voters are supposed to think, “because Democrats will be there to keep them from going too far.”
And so, before the 2016 elections, GOP officials have an incentive to leave Americans with the impression that Republicans won’t simply be able to run roughshod, passing every right-wing idea that pops into their minds.
But come 2017, would a powerful GOP controlling all the levers of power go in a different direction?
...................................................................................................................................................................
"... conservative thought leaders feel compelled to defend Trump's nativist ramblings." Obviously we can't let one of "those people" to be elected.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's civic syphilis, and there's not enought penicillin in the world to cure it.
* I chalk this one up to "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
* It has been 35 years since the GOP showed any concern about their Prez nominees being anything better than a senile old fool. St Ronald set the standard...the rest of these jokers are just checking the boxes.
* It is a large herd of GOP candidates and there can be only one. They are all trying to pander to the same demographic which has become increasingly unhinged since 92 and certifiably insane in 2012. So they have to continue to try to outdo each other in crazy just to get attention. It is telling that the candidate with the absolute least capability and hurling the most and nastiest and least substantial feces of all , Trump, is enjoying tier 1 support from the base. This is going to be even more entertaining that the 2012 carnival. Though it remains extremely disappointing to realize the sheer volume of crazy that surrounds us.
* GOP and their circus troupe have successfully chased away, working women, gays, Hispanics, blacks, sane people, millennials. They have to doubledown on the crazy as that is the only pool of voters left for them to pursue.
* Well, you have to admit, they DO accurately represent their constituents.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Blatant Ignorance of Republican Presidential Candidates
The symptoms of the prion disease are beginning to become so obvious that even some of our more prominent pundits are beginning to notice them. For example, even former Karl Rove life-coach Ron Fournier has noticed the severe lack of Abraham Lincolns in the current GOP presidential candidates. And noted climate-denialist and baseball drone George Effing Will has staked out the bold position that many of these candidates have gone so far around the bend that they've crossed some kind of termination barrier.
And nobody knows what in the fk to do about Donald Trump. In turn, this has confused Jonathan Chait, who by and large is a sensible fellow. (H/T to Driftglass, who caught this one first today.)
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* It's civic syphilis, and there's not enought penicillin in the world to cure it.
* I chalk this one up to "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican."
* It has been 35 years since the GOP showed any concern about their Prez nominees being anything better than a senile old fool. St Ronald set the standard...the rest of these jokers are just checking the boxes.
* It is a large herd of GOP candidates and there can be only one. They are all trying to pander to the same demographic which has become increasingly unhinged since 92 and certifiably insane in 2012. So they have to continue to try to outdo each other in crazy just to get attention. It is telling that the candidate with the absolute least capability and hurling the most and nastiest and least substantial feces of all , Trump, is enjoying tier 1 support from the base. This is going to be even more entertaining that the 2012 carnival. Though it remains extremely disappointing to realize the sheer volume of crazy that surrounds us.
* GOP and their circus troupe have successfully chased away, working women, gays, Hispanics, blacks, sane people, millennials. They have to doubledown on the crazy as that is the only pool of voters left for them to pursue.
* Well, you have to admit, they DO accurately represent their constituents.
...................................................................................................................................................................
The Blatant Ignorance of Republican Presidential Candidates
In which conservatives continue to defend Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, endlessly perplexing Jonathan Chait.
By Charles P. Pierce, July 2, 2015The symptoms of the prion disease are beginning to become so obvious that even some of our more prominent pundits are beginning to notice them. For example, even former Karl Rove life-coach Ron Fournier has noticed the severe lack of Abraham Lincolns in the current GOP presidential candidates. And noted climate-denialist and baseball drone George Effing Will has staked out the bold position that many of these candidates have gone so far around the bend that they've crossed some kind of termination barrier.
It is, therefore, especially disheartening that Cruz, who clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and who is better equipped by education and experience to think clearly about courts, proposes curing what he considers this court's political behavior by turning the court into a third political branch.The problem, of course, is that, for all his expensive education and lengthy experience, Ted Cruz is a nut. And the larger problem is that the institutions of the conservative movement that has cosseted George Effing Will for his entire adult life, and from which he derives his endlessly mysterious influence as a "thinker," were the places where Republicans first ate the monkeybrains containing the prion disease in the first place.
And nobody knows what in the fk to do about Donald Trump. In turn, this has confused Jonathan Chait, who by and large is a sensible fellow. (H/T to Driftglass, who caught this one first today.)
What is significant and genuinely disturbing, not to mention poisonous to the Republican Party's electoral interests, is the fact that conservative thought leaders feel compelled to defend Trump's nativist ramblings. And not just bottom-feeding outlets like the Daily Caller and Breitbart, either. National Review editor Rich Lowry writes in Politico that Trump "has a point."Yes, ol' Sparkle Pants did write that today in Tiger Beat On The Potomac.
It's just that a lack of education is an anchor around even the hardest-working person in modern America. This is illustrated in an exhaustive report based on government data, by Steven Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors a lower level of immigration. I rely on it for the figures that follow.It's no surprise that the editor of a longtime white-supremacist journal would cite a report from the CIS, an aging storage unit of moldy quasi-intellectual nativism.
There's a reason for that. Although you'd never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials. CIS' creation was part of a carefully thought-out strategy aimed at creating a set of complementary institutions to cultivate the nativist cause — groups including the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) and NumbersUSA. As is shown in Tanton's correspondence, lodged in the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Tanton came up with the idea in the early 1980s for "a small think tank" that would "wage the war of ideas."So, no, I do not choose to engage this "exhaustive study," because, if its author had concluded anything else, he would have lost his gig entirely. The prion disease is established now. There's nobody who is immune.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Wednesday, July 1, 2015
Mr. Amyx, how do you tell if the person who walks in your store is gay? Not everybody who is gay looks "gay", and not everybody who looks "gay" is gay!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I'm sure Jesus is impressed. Do Christians in the US even open their bibles?
* "We don't serve no colored folk in this here diner." This guy's attitude and business is literally a thing of the past.
* Don't want to socially associate with 'different' in public then don't. Don't want to let 'different' into your house then don't. You don't want to sell your old car to someone 'different' then don't. Your personal life is indeed your own as long as you do not steal, abuse, or illegally interfere with the lives of people around you. A place of public business is NOT your personal life even tho you may own the business lock stock and barrel. The public (and that means all of us) protect your business, regulate your business for the good of all, provide the roads and access to your business, provide a legal system for resolving disputes etc. As such your business must serve the entire public equally and fairly. I am a law abiding good citizen and a proud Atheist -- are you going to refuse to serve me?
* I think Jesus would be ashamed of many of today's "Christians". What awful behavior. I wonder if he will require all customers to fill out a questionnaire before entering the store or making a purchase?
* "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion," ...but apparently we're perfectly fine with limiting the freedom of speech and religion of others.
* YOU can stand for what you believe....your business cannot discriminate.....it's simple really
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tennessee store owner posts sign telling gays to stay away
By Tim Ghianni, July 1, 2015
A Tennessee hardware store owner who objects to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling permitting same-sex marriage across the country posted a "No Gays Allowed" sign at his store on Monday, according to a local media report.
Jeff Amyx, who also is a Baptist minister, then swapped the sign on Tuesday at his Washburn, Tennessee, store to one that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Knoxville television station WVLT reported.
"I don't want them around because their lifestyle is one I disagree with," Amyx told the station.
Amyx could not be reached immediately for comment on Wednesday at his Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies store. The station said he has received supportive and harassing telephone calls.
"Homosexuals stand boldly for what they believe. Why can't I stand boldly for what I believe?" Amyx said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* I'm sure Jesus is impressed. Do Christians in the US even open their bibles?
* "We don't serve no colored folk in this here diner." This guy's attitude and business is literally a thing of the past.
* Don't want to socially associate with 'different' in public then don't. Don't want to let 'different' into your house then don't. You don't want to sell your old car to someone 'different' then don't. Your personal life is indeed your own as long as you do not steal, abuse, or illegally interfere with the lives of people around you. A place of public business is NOT your personal life even tho you may own the business lock stock and barrel. The public (and that means all of us) protect your business, regulate your business for the good of all, provide the roads and access to your business, provide a legal system for resolving disputes etc. As such your business must serve the entire public equally and fairly. I am a law abiding good citizen and a proud Atheist -- are you going to refuse to serve me?
* I think Jesus would be ashamed of many of today's "Christians". What awful behavior. I wonder if he will require all customers to fill out a questionnaire before entering the store or making a purchase?
* "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion," ...but apparently we're perfectly fine with limiting the freedom of speech and religion of others.
* YOU can stand for what you believe....your business cannot discriminate.....it's simple really
...................................................................................................................................................................
Tennessee store owner posts sign telling gays to stay away
By Tim Ghianni, July 1, 2015
A Tennessee hardware store owner who objects to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling permitting same-sex marriage across the country posted a "No Gays Allowed" sign at his store on Monday, according to a local media report.
Jeff Amyx, who also is a Baptist minister, then swapped the sign on Tuesday at his Washburn, Tennessee, store to one that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion," Knoxville television station WVLT reported.
"I don't want them around because their lifestyle is one I disagree with," Amyx told the station.
Amyx could not be reached immediately for comment on Wednesday at his Amyx Hardware & Roofing Supplies store. The station said he has received supportive and harassing telephone calls.
"Homosexuals stand boldly for what they believe. Why can't I stand boldly for what I believe?" Amyx said.
...................................................................................................................................................................
O'Reilly, we know that you don't like de Blasio, but attacking the homeless is not the way to express your dislike. Actually, may I suggest that it would serve you right if you joined their ranks?
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Bill O'Reilly piece on homeless people might be the worst Fox News segment ever
By German Lopez, July 1, 2015
Fox New's Bill O'Reilly on Monday ran a horrible segment in which he characterized homeless people in New York City's Penn Station as dangerous, playing into some of the worst stereotypes about the homeless.
Beyond being what Media Matters's Carlos Maza called "one of the most dehumanizing things I've seen on Fox," the segment also misses what could be behind a recent rise of homeless people at the train station. O'Reilly argues this supposed increase — which is completely unproven, and appears to be based on Fox News staffers and some New Yorkers' personal observations — is due to relaxed law enforcement because of "uber-liberal" Mayor Bill de Blasio's policing policies. Not only is there absolutely no evidence to support this assertion, but there's a much more plausible explanation: The number of homeless people in New York City has been trending up for years.
A 2015 report by the Coalition of the Homeless showed that, although homelessness appeared to stabilize between 2014 and 2015, it's trended way up for decades — long before de Blasio took office in January 2014. While the city's population grew by about 16 percent between 1990 and 2014, the number of homeless people tracked in the New York City shelter system more than tripled during this time.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3837446/New%20York%20City%20homeless.png)
Coalition for the Homeless
This doesn't appear to be a problem only in New York. A 2014 study from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development found that, while homelessness declined by 2 percent between 2013 and 2014, it rose by 6 percent in New York City, where 12 percent of homeless Americans reside, and 1 percent in all major cities. So major cities generally saw a rise as the rest of the nation didn't.
It doesn't have to be this way. In 2005, Utah began giving homeless people permanent housing, and reduced chronic homelessness by nearly 72 percent in the following nine years, according to a state report. And it saved money in the process: Lloyd Pendleton, director of Utah's Homeless Task Force, estimated to Mother Jones's Scott Carrier that the state's program costs between $10,000 and $12,000 per person, which is nearly half of the $20,000 it would take to treat and care for a homeless person on the street. (These exact numbers don't apply to New York City, where housing is much more expensive.)
But to get policymakers to consider these types of solutions, there first has to be awareness that there is a homelessness problem. O'Reilly did nothing to bring attention to the real issue, and instead characterized people in clear need of help as dangerous just to take political shots at a mayor he doesn't like.
...................................................................................................................................................................
This Bill O'Reilly piece on homeless people might be the worst Fox News segment ever
By German Lopez, July 1, 2015
Fox New's Bill O'Reilly on Monday ran a horrible segment in which he characterized homeless people in New York City's Penn Station as dangerous, playing into some of the worst stereotypes about the homeless.
Beyond being what Media Matters's Carlos Maza called "one of the most dehumanizing things I've seen on Fox," the segment also misses what could be behind a recent rise of homeless people at the train station. O'Reilly argues this supposed increase — which is completely unproven, and appears to be based on Fox News staffers and some New Yorkers' personal observations — is due to relaxed law enforcement because of "uber-liberal" Mayor Bill de Blasio's policing policies. Not only is there absolutely no evidence to support this assertion, but there's a much more plausible explanation: The number of homeless people in New York City has been trending up for years.
A 2015 report by the Coalition of the Homeless showed that, although homelessness appeared to stabilize between 2014 and 2015, it's trended way up for decades — long before de Blasio took office in January 2014. While the city's population grew by about 16 percent between 1990 and 2014, the number of homeless people tracked in the New York City shelter system more than tripled during this time.
Coalition for the Homeless
This doesn't appear to be a problem only in New York. A 2014 study from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development found that, while homelessness declined by 2 percent between 2013 and 2014, it rose by 6 percent in New York City, where 12 percent of homeless Americans reside, and 1 percent in all major cities. So major cities generally saw a rise as the rest of the nation didn't.
It doesn't have to be this way. In 2005, Utah began giving homeless people permanent housing, and reduced chronic homelessness by nearly 72 percent in the following nine years, according to a state report. And it saved money in the process: Lloyd Pendleton, director of Utah's Homeless Task Force, estimated to Mother Jones's Scott Carrier that the state's program costs between $10,000 and $12,000 per person, which is nearly half of the $20,000 it would take to treat and care for a homeless person on the street. (These exact numbers don't apply to New York City, where housing is much more expensive.)
But to get policymakers to consider these types of solutions, there first has to be awareness that there is a homelessness problem. O'Reilly did nothing to bring attention to the real issue, and instead characterized people in clear need of help as dangerous just to take political shots at a mayor he doesn't like.
...................................................................................................................................................................
"Bush can afford to give at Obama or Romney levels. Indeed, he doesn't have a good reason not to." Other than he's a cheap b*****d.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush says he’s proud of his charitable giving. He shouldn’t be.
By Dylan Matthews, July 1, 2015
One of the most humiliating revelations from Jeb Bush's tax records, which he posted online Tuesday, is that Bush is a true Scrooge when it comes to charitable giving. In 2013, he gave $110,616. That seems like a lot, until you consider it's only 1.5 percent of his $7.3 million income that year.
That tax cycle wasn't an aberration. Every year since leaving the Florida governorship, Bush has given 3 percent or less of his income to charity, despite making millions of dollars every year.
Bush is just fine with his giving. "I’m proud of what Columba and I have contributed," he declared upon releasing the records. He shouldn't be.
Jeb Bush could be saving dozens of lives every year
According to the charity evaluator GiveWell, one of their top charities, the Against Malaria Foundation, spends about $5.30-$7.50 per bednet it distributes to children in Malawi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Given what we know about bednet effectiveness, that means Against Malaria spends $3,340 for every life it saves. Those kind of estimates are necessarily rough but it's probably somewhere in that ballpark. If Jeb Bush had given 10 percent of his income ($727,476.40) to Against Malaria in 2013, he could've bought around 100,000 bednets, and saved about 218 lives.
Unless you're actually impoverished, 1.5 percent is a really small amount of money to give. My annual income is two orders of magnitude smaller than Bush's, and I'm still on track to give 11 percent to charity this year. And even that's nothing. Consider Jason Trigg, or the couple Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman, who give away half of their earnings to hyper-effective charities every year. That's the saintly option.
Compared to that, giving 10 percent — the minimum suggested by the group Giving What We Can, which promotes effective philanthropic giving — ought to be easy. But Bush doesn't do it.
Other rich politicians have given a lot more than Jeb Bush
This is especially damning given how rich Bush is. It's one thing to not give 10 percent when you're making $50,000 a year; I certainly fell short earlier in my career. But $5,000 is really significant to someone earning $50,000. $730,000 to someone making $7.3 million just isn't. The marginal decrease in Jeb Bush's well-being from living on only $6.6 million is real, but tiny.
Many of Bush's peers have done a lot better. In 2011, Mitt Romney gave nearly a third of his income to charity. Last year, Barack and Michelle Obama gave 14.8 percent. In 2008, Hillary Clinton revealed that she and Bill gave 9.5 percent of their income to charity between 2000 and 2007. The big exceptions are the Bidens, who reported giving 1.9 percent last year, which is, like Bush's contribution track record, horrible.
Jeb is also below the average for all people in his income category. In 2011, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $5 million and $10 million gave 3.7 percent to charity, on average. Jeb gave just 1 percent that year.
Bush can afford to give at Obama or Romney levels. Indeed, he doesn't have a good reason not to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush says he’s proud of his charitable giving. He shouldn’t be.
By Dylan Matthews, July 1, 2015
One of the most humiliating revelations from Jeb Bush's tax records, which he posted online Tuesday, is that Bush is a true Scrooge when it comes to charitable giving. In 2013, he gave $110,616. That seems like a lot, until you consider it's only 1.5 percent of his $7.3 million income that year.
That tax cycle wasn't an aberration. Every year since leaving the Florida governorship, Bush has given 3 percent or less of his income to charity, despite making millions of dollars every year.
Bush is just fine with his giving. "I’m proud of what Columba and I have contributed," he declared upon releasing the records. He shouldn't be.
Jeb Bush could be saving dozens of lives every year
According to the charity evaluator GiveWell, one of their top charities, the Against Malaria Foundation, spends about $5.30-$7.50 per bednet it distributes to children in Malawi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Given what we know about bednet effectiveness, that means Against Malaria spends $3,340 for every life it saves. Those kind of estimates are necessarily rough but it's probably somewhere in that ballpark. If Jeb Bush had given 10 percent of his income ($727,476.40) to Against Malaria in 2013, he could've bought around 100,000 bednets, and saved about 218 lives.
Unless you're actually impoverished, 1.5 percent is a really small amount of money to give. My annual income is two orders of magnitude smaller than Bush's, and I'm still on track to give 11 percent to charity this year. And even that's nothing. Consider Jason Trigg, or the couple Julia Wise and Jeff Kaufman, who give away half of their earnings to hyper-effective charities every year. That's the saintly option.
Compared to that, giving 10 percent — the minimum suggested by the group Giving What We Can, which promotes effective philanthropic giving — ought to be easy. But Bush doesn't do it.
Other rich politicians have given a lot more than Jeb Bush
This is especially damning given how rich Bush is. It's one thing to not give 10 percent when you're making $50,000 a year; I certainly fell short earlier in my career. But $5,000 is really significant to someone earning $50,000. $730,000 to someone making $7.3 million just isn't. The marginal decrease in Jeb Bush's well-being from living on only $6.6 million is real, but tiny.
Many of Bush's peers have done a lot better. In 2011, Mitt Romney gave nearly a third of his income to charity. Last year, Barack and Michelle Obama gave 14.8 percent. In 2008, Hillary Clinton revealed that she and Bill gave 9.5 percent of their income to charity between 2000 and 2007. The big exceptions are the Bidens, who reported giving 1.9 percent last year, which is, like Bush's contribution track record, horrible.
Jeb is also below the average for all people in his income category. In 2011, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $5 million and $10 million gave 3.7 percent to charity, on average. Jeb gave just 1 percent that year.
Bush can afford to give at Obama or Romney levels. Indeed, he doesn't have a good reason not to.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Apparently Texas' AG thinks the state has deep pockets to be able to pay out the money awarded in response to the discrimination lawsuits that will be brought.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So preventing persecution by "christian" Bigots is "persecuting" the "christian" bigot? How juvenile. I suppose you think it is "intolerant" of the Gay couple to get married because some narrow minded chucklehead can't handle treating them equally? Just like Blacks not accepting second class treatment by Conservative White "Christians" at lunch counters etc....out of "tolerance" for the "opinions" of the Bigot..
* The religious fanatics in the U.S. use religion like a weapon and all these people are Republicans as I've not seen a Democrat use religion to deny anyone anything.
* The whole notion that these Bigots with Bibles are "sincere" is phony on its face...these clerks, bakers, etc... single out Gay couples and don't blink an eye or hold their tongues about the numerous other things as "christians" they supposedly object to...it is obviously just an excuse and should be brushed aside not coddled ....
* ... they seem to have forgotten "judge not lest you be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyseld." Funny how they leave out the parts of the bibile they don't like or adhere to.
* Typical "Right Wing" religious hypocrisy: If they discriminate against or criticize you , it's called religious freedom, if you return the favor it's called persecution . The *United States Of America is not a Theocracy. Mixing religion with govt always poisons the well . Separation of church and state works. It's the only way for .both to exist in purity. The Founding Fathers knew this.
* Because Conservative "christian" bigots think invoking religion absolves them from being properly labeled as ignorant bigots...notice how many people will crticize someone for nutty views and actions but if that person invokes their Invisible deity they often have gotten a pass
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas' Attorney General Is Confused About How Religious Liberty Works
By Carolyn Davis, July 1, 2015
Want to get married in Texas? Better make sure the clerk issuing your marriage license thinks your wedding is cool with Jesus — or with God, Krishna, the Qur’an, or whatever other religious deity or set of sincerely-held beliefs shapes the clerk’s conscience when it comes to marriage.
Read the whole story at ThinkProgress
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* So preventing persecution by "christian" Bigots is "persecuting" the "christian" bigot? How juvenile. I suppose you think it is "intolerant" of the Gay couple to get married because some narrow minded chucklehead can't handle treating them equally? Just like Blacks not accepting second class treatment by Conservative White "Christians" at lunch counters etc....out of "tolerance" for the "opinions" of the Bigot..
* The religious fanatics in the U.S. use religion like a weapon and all these people are Republicans as I've not seen a Democrat use religion to deny anyone anything.
* The whole notion that these Bigots with Bibles are "sincere" is phony on its face...these clerks, bakers, etc... single out Gay couples and don't blink an eye or hold their tongues about the numerous other things as "christians" they supposedly object to...it is obviously just an excuse and should be brushed aside not coddled ....
* ... they seem to have forgotten "judge not lest you be judged" and "love thy neighbor as thyseld." Funny how they leave out the parts of the bibile they don't like or adhere to.
* Typical "Right Wing" religious hypocrisy: If they discriminate against or criticize you , it's called religious freedom, if you return the favor it's called persecution . The *United States Of America is not a Theocracy. Mixing religion with govt always poisons the well . Separation of church and state works. It's the only way for .both to exist in purity. The Founding Fathers knew this.
* Because Conservative "christian" bigots think invoking religion absolves them from being properly labeled as ignorant bigots...notice how many people will crticize someone for nutty views and actions but if that person invokes their Invisible deity they often have gotten a pass
...................................................................................................................................................................
Texas' Attorney General Is Confused About How Religious Liberty Works
By Carolyn Davis, July 1, 2015
Want to get married in Texas? Better make sure the clerk issuing your marriage license thinks your wedding is cool with Jesus — or with God, Krishna, the Qur’an, or whatever other religious deity or set of sincerely-held beliefs shapes the clerk’s conscience when it comes to marriage.
Read the whole story at ThinkProgress
...................................................................................................................................................................
Hypocrite much? Let's all keep this in mind!
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Please, everybody that has the opportunity, make this fact known everywhere this shit has to be exposed. . .two faced bastards. ! sorry but this should not get buried in the muck out there. [Ed.: consider it done!]
* Wall St. likes the ACA as shown by the pop in health-care stocks as soon as last week's SCOTUS decision came out. Pro-business politicians may talk a good anti-ACA line, to satisfy the ideologues, but it doesn't surprise me that they're perfectly content to make money off it.
* I'm tellin' ya... they've been trying to back away from repeal for a long while. But the crazy base hasn't let them. That crazy base now has a different shiny object to distract them: marriage equality. I don't think it'll work as well as "death panels" but what do I know? When I first heard "death panels" I laughed til I cried, but I was crying again a year later when they won the house. There's no way of telling how much crazy they can rile up.
* Riddle me this: how does Bush get by on a nickname? When I saw the cartoon in DailyKOS that pointed out Jeb?s name is really John Ellis, it looked it up for confirmation. Sure enough, his name is John Ellis Bush. Not Jeb or Jeb! or Jeb#. Has there ever been a presidential candidate that pretended a nickname was his real name? and was accepted by the press as such (doesn't NY Times copy desk have a rule about nicknames etc?)? [snipped] But I do not recall ever seeing any news report, story or article that accurately identified him as John Ellis Bush. Of course, I could easily have missed it since I have little to no interest in reading anything about him or his bogus policies - unless it is a indictment for his shady business deals. Like his brother, John Ellis affects the nickname to distance himself for his patriarchal east coast heritage. A way to disguise his true nature as a blue blood, ivy league son of private school privilege that gets away playing by a different rule book than the one he so vigorously proposes for everyone else.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb! trashes Obamacare in public, but privately made a cool half million off it
By Kerry Eleveld, July 1, 2015
Jeb! has called Obamacare "flawed to its core" on several occasions, but apparently it wasn't too flawed for him to make a handsome profit from. Josh Barro reports.
...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
* Please, everybody that has the opportunity, make this fact known everywhere this shit has to be exposed. . .two faced bastards. ! sorry but this should not get buried in the muck out there. [Ed.: consider it done!]
* Wall St. likes the ACA as shown by the pop in health-care stocks as soon as last week's SCOTUS decision came out. Pro-business politicians may talk a good anti-ACA line, to satisfy the ideologues, but it doesn't surprise me that they're perfectly content to make money off it.
* I'm tellin' ya... they've been trying to back away from repeal for a long while. But the crazy base hasn't let them. That crazy base now has a different shiny object to distract them: marriage equality. I don't think it'll work as well as "death panels" but what do I know? When I first heard "death panels" I laughed til I cried, but I was crying again a year later when they won the house. There's no way of telling how much crazy they can rile up.
* Riddle me this: how does Bush get by on a nickname? When I saw the cartoon in DailyKOS that pointed out Jeb?s name is really John Ellis, it looked it up for confirmation. Sure enough, his name is John Ellis Bush. Not Jeb or Jeb! or Jeb#. Has there ever been a presidential candidate that pretended a nickname was his real name? and was accepted by the press as such (doesn't NY Times copy desk have a rule about nicknames etc?)? [snipped] But I do not recall ever seeing any news report, story or article that accurately identified him as John Ellis Bush. Of course, I could easily have missed it since I have little to no interest in reading anything about him or his bogus policies - unless it is a indictment for his shady business deals. Like his brother, John Ellis affects the nickname to distance himself for his patriarchal east coast heritage. A way to disguise his true nature as a blue blood, ivy league son of private school privilege that gets away playing by a different rule book than the one he so vigorously proposes for everyone else.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb! trashes Obamacare in public, but privately made a cool half million off it
By Kerry Eleveld, July 1, 2015
Jeb! has called Obamacare "flawed to its core" on several occasions, but apparently it wasn't too flawed for him to make a handsome profit from. Josh Barro reports.
According to tax returns released by Mr. Bush’s campaign on Tuesday, he sold $1,103,424 worth of stock in Tenet Healthcare in September and October of 2013, yielding a capital gain of $556,283. It hadn’t taken Mr. Bush long to double his money — he was selling shares he had acquired in 2010 and 2011.[...]And why did Tenet's stocks outperform other stocks? Because investors anticipated that Obamacare would make hospitals more profitable, with increased usage and fewer payment defaults by uninsured patients.
Mr. Bush served as a director of Tenet from 2007 to 2014, and like other directors, he was required as a condition of his employment to hold a significant investment in Tenet.
Mr. Bush’s tax returns reflect a gain of 105 percent on Tenet stock he acquired in May 2011 and sold in October 2013. Tenet shares actually gained 68 percent over that period; Mr. Bush’s higher gain may be related to his receipt of restricted stock grants. Still, Tenet’s 68 percent gain was much stronger than the 26 percent overall gain for the S.&P. 500 index over the same period.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)