Spartan Ethic Redux, Take Two

In case you haven't encountered it yet, there's an unpleasant graphic that was emailed around from a staffperson to the Tennessee GOP chair / state senator for Gallatin, Diane Black. One Sherri Goforth was responsible for the distribution.

Nashville is Talking has probably the choices initial responses.

I spoke with Sherri Goforth minutes ago to confirm she sent this email. She confirmed she had sent it and also said she had received a letter of reprimand from her superiors but said she will stay on the job.

When I asked her if she understood the controversial nature of the photo, Goforth would only say she felt very bad about accidentally sending it to the wrong list. When I gave her a second chance to address the controversial nature of the email, she again repeated that she only felt bad about sending it to the wrong list of people.

“I went on the wrong email and I inadvertently hit the wrong button,” Goforth told NIT. “I’m very sick about it, and it’s one of those things I can’t change or take back.”

Note the total indifference to - or perhaps celebration of - the impropriety of the image inherent in Ms. Goforth's non-apology. Note also the fault she perceives: it wasn't that she sent an offensive, racist image - it was that she sent an offensive, racist image to the wrong distribution list, delivering it to hypersensitive people without a sense of humour who obviously don't get the joke instead of the GOP in-crowd who'd think the image hilarious.

One more thing struck me reading through the noise on this incident. One of the comments at Nashville is Talking included this gem from a commenter calling itself Slimey:

First of all, this is not racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior over another. This is plain and simple being stupid. Please people, stop calling this racism. Grow up! How many of you laugh during Blazin Saddles? Yet it’s full of racial innuendos and language. I don’t oppose the guy cause he’s black, it’s because he’s a socialist liberal.

Deconstructing for Slimey:

First off, the image. "OOH! A SPOOK! Visible only by the whites of its eyes (as opposed to the whites of the skins of the previous 43 MEN in the progression), here to rape your women / steal your stuff / take over your government." NEWSFLASH: that's what racism looks like.

Second, the "socialist liberal" bit. The US has moved quite far to the right on the political scale in global terms, so it all depends on one's position. To a Fascist, everything looks Socialist.

H/T Shakesville, BBWW et al.

The Inmates Take Charge Of The Asylum

Musing on this post by Mustang Bobby over at Bark Bark Woof Woof brought me to this realisation.

It's becoming more apparent to me that today's GOP as an organisation is little more than a collection of extreme rightwing crazies with a veneer of passable politics over the mess. It's a bit like finding the "priceless antique table" you bought is really a paper-thin layer of mahogany glued over termite-ridden pine planks.

We all thought that ShrubCo was an aberration, a convenient ignoramus to cover the party machinery underneath. But the more recent actions indicate that the Bush presidency may have been more symptomatic than was previously apparent. The flurry of recent stories of recent GOP stupidity is far more telling than the worst of Shrub's candid comments - it spotlights a wilfully ignorant, cantankerous, consciously obstructive organisation totally unwilling to examine even its own counterproductive methods in its scramble back up to the top. I'm wondering whether the more recent efforts, more reminiscent of scorched-earth combat tactics than any real attempt at governance, is the work of a group with no interest in the national welfare at all or simply that of a group too collectively stupid to care.

No matter what the cause for the misbehaviour of the party, however, it is clear that any attempt to gloss over this bad behaviour doesn't adhere all that well. McCain was persuaded to select perhaps the least competent candidate for running mate not a year ago. The RNC chair, Steele, even with his gaffes presents a more articulate, informed image than the voices drowning him out. And even the voices of relative sanity within the GOP (Powell et al) are sidelined by the noisiest of the loons.

Fifteen years ago, Gingrich and his Congressional allies presented at least an intelligent front to the populace behind which to hatch their schemes. The cracks through to the rotten substance beneath were beginning, but far more difficult to penetrate. Today the equation is nearly reversed: the damage below the surface is readily apparent and popping up in ever more debates, and the attempts to find some respectable platform or spokesperson to make the nutsery seem rational are failing on an increasingly spectacular scale.

Shorter Richard Posner

If Obama moves the Democrats further to the Left, then Republicans can return to Conservatism and stop playing Militant-Xtian-Fascists.

H/T Andrew Sullivan.

Perspective Fail

Heard this morning on Bay News 9 (and paraphrased here because I don't TiVo):

dealerships may have a reprieve.

Host Erica Riggins describing the lawsuit to halt the Chrysler-Fiat deal as apparently good for Bay Area dealerships. The lawsuit is jeopardising the agreement between Chrysler and Fiat which was put together to save what's left of the weakest of the Big Three's business in the US: pension funds are ticked that they're not getting what they perceive as their fair shake and want the entire agreement renegotiated. Fiat has said they'll bow out by the end of this week if the agreement cannot be finalised, and the current push to the Supreme Court could push settling the debate past that window. Apparently to BN9 losing the entirety of Chrysler to legal wrangling is a good thing, though, since it means local Chrysler dealerships will remain open (at least for a couple more weeks).

It's a lot of money, but it's in line with private summer camps.

A summer camp counselor for Hillsborough County describing the county's new (far higher) tuition rates for summer camp. Someone really needs to teach this genius the difference between public service and private luxury.

A Dream Deferred

Carl over at The Reaction has put up a very thought-provoking piece about the steps the Obama administration and Congressional leaders are taking to advance a progressive agenda. He's concerned - and with reason.

It's a radical departure from congressional precedent, in which budget rules have been designed and used to reduce deficits, not expand the size of government. And it promises bitter divisiveness under an administration that has made repeated promises to reach across the partisan divide.

For my part, I see the move as something rather different, and dangerous in its own way.

One of my longest-held political principles is that a budget process that can be balanced over time is critical tot the stability of any government. Keynes spoke to this eloquently: when the economy is weak, the government must spend to stimulate production, but when the economy is strong, the government must recoup those expenditures as preparation for the next downturn. Economists following Keynes, and economic policymakers, have made ample use of the first half of the principle. They have, however, conveniently forgotten the second.

Congress has presented multiple pieces of legislation to require the federal budget be balanced as a matter of practice. The amendments offered, however, were to require a balanced budget every year. This, if Keynes is correct, is not only impossible but massively unwise as it prevents the federal government from taking action to stimulate a faltering economy even as it likewise prevents the same government from recouping those losses and posting a net gain during times of prosperity. Balanced budgets under these conditions would enshrine a certain amount of debt: any obligation outstanding would necessarily be retained as a sort of credit line that once paid off could never be incurred again, preventing its closure just as the interest paid on it would become - as has become the de facto case - merely the cost of governance.

The GOP showed its hand in the 90s, demanding a balanced budget. It was no doubt to their chagrin that the Clinton administration, buoyed by a thriving tech sector, was able to oblige. However, the taxation required to maintain the progression was successfully presented as an excessive burden. Whether this was an ideological position, or merely maneuvering to sabotage the economic success of the Clinton years, is not clear. What is clear is that the Bush administration lost no time revising the tax code, sabotaging the balanced budget effort even as they made the burden less on the higher economic echelons of society.

I will freely admit that I have never had a particularly high opinion of the Bush presidency. There are many reasons for this, the brutality of the GWoT and radical rewriting of public ethics being chief in my complaints. However, the effective nuking of the federal budget is not far behind. Bush's policies did little to diminish the size of government except in areas of particular interest to the most radical of the administration's supporters. Reduced taxes placed an excessive burden on the existing infrastructure. And the various efforts of the GWoT squandered what little was left, leaving the US massively in debt and all hope of a short path to a balanced budget and reduced federal obligation in the dust.

This is the fiscal mess that Obama has inherited along with the economic collapse. Abandoning the irresponsible tax cuts of the Bush administration would in ordinary times be a responsible measure aimed at balancing the budget. Under the present circumstances, however, a balanced budget is as realistic as flying to the moon on a contraption built of string and sealing wax. The shattered economy combined with the enormous costs of occupation of two foreign lands make any attempt to balance the federal budget in the near future suicidal at best.

In turn, the radically increasing costs of healthcare in the US present the most likely source of bankruptcy, both private and public. Healthcare costs are increasing at multiples of inflation just as the average salary is shrinking and as employment is falling faster than the GOP's polling numbers. Social Security may not be an issue for many years yet, but Medicare is fast approaching a critical point where, between the needs of an aging population and the skyrocketing costs of preserving that population's health, it will be unable to meet the need.

Indeed, the pressures of keeping healthy under the US system are becoming so bad that medical tourism is fast becoming the avenue of choice for anyone facing major medical procedures. Walking with Ghosts has a fascinating projection on how many US citizens are projected to seek medical care overseas, not merely for the sake of the novelty of travel involved but also to save considerable expense. Should this trend progress much further, as the costs of healthcare abroad present an increasingly small fraction of the costs of the same care in the US, the healthcare system will either fail utterly - a tragedy for any nation - or outsource such procedures as a matter of course - which would deprive the US of major healthcare talent and needed tax revenue, producing a like result.

Under these circumstances, substantial review of US healthcare policy is not just a necessity but a mandate.

The recent step taken by the Congress - to include a new healthcare bill in the current budget legislation as part of the reconciliation process - is therefore most necessary, particularly if the long-term health of the US economy and the federal budget are to be maintained along with the long-term health of the US citizenry.

Carl's suggestion, that this is a less-than-usual method of handling such legislation, and that this is a substantial effort on the part of the federal government, is well taken. And were there a rational opposition party in place to advocate for a more appropriate or effective solution it would have substantial weight.

Unfortunately, the current crop of GOP congresspeople seem committed to opposing the Obama administration, and the Democratic majority in Congress, on every initiative and proposition. The level of spite and malice involved in their unthinking nay-saying is palpable. One need look no further than the initial budget debate to see proof: in response to a dense, carefully calculated budget proposed by the Democrats, the Republicans produced a couple dozen pages of theoretical waffle with not one single quantifiable alternative proposal to present. The recent kerfluffle with Somali pirates is equally indicative: no action taken, deferred or prevented has been met with anything but derision, and many condemnations overtly contradict the others. The GOP has indeed become the Party of No, squealing like a small child who has just discovered its new favorite word and ignorant of the meaning or consequences of its use.

Faced with circumstances like these, and able to present a majority government in both branches tasked with enacting legislation, the Democratic party has little choice but to use the methods available to it. If that means bypassing the irrationality presented by the opposition, then that is obviously what must be done to achieve progress.

I know too little of the new healthcare initiative to comment intelligently on it at this time. However, I know more than enough of the current system to say with conviction that it is well and truly broken, perhaps irrevocably. If healthcare is to remain a resource available to the citizens of the US it must be rethought substantially, and rethought soon. Should this new programme be at all productive I believe it worth the risks. And swelling the federal bureaucracy to achieve that, after the lessons of the last twenty years, is far more easily remedied than might be thought: the only uncertainties are in how that reduction would be accomplished and whether the resultant costs are worth preserving the small-government ideal.

UPDATE: As to the "radical departure from congressional precedent" Carl mentions, ThinkProgress has an effective rebuttal.

Buddies For Hire

The scandals surrounding former Elections Supervisor Buddy Johnson continue to unravel.

Some members of a black advisory board created by former Elections Supervisor Buddy Johnson now say they witnessed firsthand the influence of paid consultants on the message being presented to voters.

...

The concern came over a discussion about whether Johnson's name or just his title should be used in public information distributed to black voters.

When a member of the African-American Advisory Board offered his opinion, he was overruled.

"There were times in which we would discuss things and how they should appear. There was a fine line," said Anddrikk Fraiser, vice president of the African-American Advisory Board. "I said, 'Maybe we should just go with Hillsborough County Supervisor of Elections,' and the consultant would say, 'No, it should say Buddy Johnson.'

"Was it egregious? I would say yes."

Johnson and his office created the advisory board in August to be an independent panel that would identify issues of concern among minority voters.

It was a volunteer organization made up of black leaders from area churches, businesses and community organizations.

But Johnson used federal voter education money to pay two consultants, Thomas Huggins and Sherryl Cusseaux, who regularly attended board meetings. Huggins was in charge of Johnson's black outreach, and Cusseaux had been hired, in part, to establish the board.

...

Today, Johnson is out of a job and under federal investigation for how his office spent taxpayer money.

Phyllis Busansky, who defeated him in November, no longer employs the consultants who worked to craft his education outreach.

But the advisory board remains, trying to fulfill its mission.

...

Board members are still discovering how little they knew about Johnson's outreach effort.

It was only recently, Fraiser said, that he learned Johnson also paid $16,204 to a third consultant, Patty, to duplicate work the board was doing for free.

Fraiser said they were never told that Patty had been hired in early October to help defuse rumors about "No Match, No Vote." At the time of Patty's hiring, the board was scheduling two forums to discuss the issue and address concerns.

"I had no idea Michelle Patty had anything to do with Buddy Johnson, besides being an endorser, until those stories came out," he said.

"I do find it a little bit odd because of the efforts we went through to flame out the rumor of the 'No Match, No Vote.' That was one of the top things on our list, behind working with ex-felons to get their rights restored."

...

From its inception Aug. 21, there was much the board wasn't told.

The 17 members were not told how everyone was selected or why.

They were not told until mid-September that the board would not receive any money. Members had to pay for expenses out of pocket, Favorite said.

"No one on that committee got paid anything," Fraiser said. "We were meeting two, three hours every two weeks."

And they were not told that Cusseaux had been paid to create the board.

The investigations continue.

Not Shrill Enough

Apparently John McCain isn't "conservative" enough for some of his constituents.

“John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation’s borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness,” [newly-announced primary opponent, and Minuteman Civil Defense Corps founder, Chris] Simcox said in a statement according to MSNBC. “He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation’s border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation’s problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough.”

I suppose it was inevitable.

Quote of the Day

What must it be like to show up for a protest, denounce your Country, bad mouth the President, threaten armed revolt, and have your very own media outlet brand you a patriot.

- a reader responding to Ross Douthat's less-than-admirable take on the Teabaggers, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan.

On a related note, Douthat says he's leaving The Atlantic. Sullivan wishes him "Good Luck." Based on what little of Douthat's work I have read I, too, have a two word remark for him beginning with "Good" - and Luck has nothing to do with it.

Quote of the Day

Apparently Bush Republicans measure the security of this nation using an odd metric. Apparently the safety of this country can be determined by gauging how sadistically we brutalize prisoners in our care.

- John Cole, discussing the Conservatist reaction to the release of the DOJ memos concerning "enhanced interrogation."

SSAD Becoming Epidemic

Andrew Sullivan puts it very succinctly.

UPDATE: For those of you searching this in a vacuum, see "A Case Of SSAD" for detail.

About Who Gets The Cheque

Politics is a lot like dating. If you made the invitation, if you pick up the tab, s/he thinks s/he's something special; you split it, it's equality; s/he gets it and the world ends. If s/he made it, if s/he picks up the tab, you're chuffed; you split it, it's OK; if you get stuck with it, s/he's a loser you need to drop quickly.

Part of the problem with the stimulus package is that the price tag borders on the unimaginable. Plenty of critics have complained about waste, irrelevant projects and "pork," but Jonah Goldberg seems to have hit the conservative nail on the head: he just doesn't want to pay the bill.

That is, by far, my driving attitude in all of this. I just don't want to pay for it. It's not that I don't want government to do nice things for deserving people in certain circumstances. It's not necessarily that I'm hostile to this group of beneficiaries or that (though I am in fact hostile to some). It's that I think most of Obama's ideas will not work, will be a waste of money and will hurt the economy. And, flatly, I don't want to pay for it.

The difficulty with promoting any public expenditure is that, outside certain universal programmes, it doesn't have the same benefit for everyone. Small-farm subsidies do nothing for urban city dwellers on their face, nor does public transport for the farmers. Programmes for the elderly don't help children directly, and public education does little for seniors. Society as a whole, however, is improved by all those programmes, and more often than not targeting public resources to specific groups with specific needs has benefits far beyond those immediately targeted.

The problem, however, is persuading people that public funds for other people is beneficial for everyone - including themselves. Part of the outrage at the claims Congressman Boehner made about rail projects was at the idea of rich Angelenos getting the fast track to Vegas to go gamble and party. Part of the problem with the gang rehabilitation tattoo-removal programme was about worthless punks and potentially-violent Goths getting all those tribal symbols taken off so they could be just like everyone else again. The list may well be endless given the preconceptions involved.

Identification is at the core of the reactions: with the people who don't get the funds allocated for those programmes, and of the people who the critics imply would. Rich people tired of driving, anti-business tree-huggers, and worthless kids not punished for turning their skins into galleries of "art." That none of the fingers pointed in this way point to actual targets is irrelevant: the picture painted fits with righteous Xtian Conservative views of the decadence of society. And of course good people don't want to reward the decadent, the lazy, or the weak.

So the RWNM makes noise about practical programmes that will help society in terms that make the recipients of the aid look like the less desirable segments of society. By doing so, not only do they make the stimulus look like waste, they make it look like waste deliberately delivered to the least meritorious among us: those that already have everything, and those that have presumably squandered whatever they had through their own (presumed) stupidity.

Thus we get back to the dinner cheque. If you take him/her out once, that's nice of you. If s/he never pays the bill, that's despicable, and a sign that you should find someone else to spend your time with and lavish your attentions upon. The Conservatives want to paint every item in the stimulus as that sort of dinner date, where the folks getting help are the same ones that never pay the bill. It's not only wasteful by their reasoning, it encourages further waste in the future by coddling the worst of us who need to learn discipline - discipline they assume they already have. It's no wonder they don't want to pay for it.

It Must Be The Altitude

Four stories out of Colorado (three via Mustang Bobby at Bark Bark Woof Woof) caught my eye today.

The first two are typical wingnut histrionics over Teh Sex and other yukky things. First comes state senator Scott Renfroe:

It all started with Republican Scott Renfroe of Greeley, who got some attention for comments he made Monday about a bill that extends health benefits to same-sex partners of state employees. It's "an abomination according to Scripture," Renfroe said, according to the Colorado Independent, to "[take] sins and [make] them to be legally OK.”

Renfroe -- apparently a magnanimous kind of guy -- was willing to admit that homosexuality isn't the only sin listed in the Bible. "I’m not saying this is the only sin that is out there. Obviously we have sin -- we have murder, we have, we have all sorts of sin, we have adultery, and we don’t make laws making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal," he said.

I wonder how well Renfroe has read his Leviticus (since that's apparently what he's basing this on), and if so whether he thinks twice when he orders baby back ribs or fried shrimp, or when he shaves, or when he wears a poly/cotton blend shirt, or ...

Up next, Dave Schultheis, who for some reason thinks HIV testing of already pregnant women is somehow supportive of promiscuity:

Sexual promiscuity, we know, causes a lot of problems in our state, one of which, obviously, is the contraction of HIV. And we have other programs that deal with the negative consequences -- we put up part of our high schools where we allow students maybe 13 years old who put their child in a small daycare center there.

We do things continually to remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior, quite frankly, and I don’t think that’s the role of this body.

His was the only opposing vote on the matter, by the way. I wonder if it occurs to him that pregnant women have had sex already to become pregnant in the first place, so the damage is, so to speak, already done. And the whole presumption that people should be stuck with the consequences their bad choices (which apparently includes children and/or incurable illnesses) is so hateful, misogynistic and downright unChristian as to turn one's stomach.

The third was the demise of the Rocky Mountain News. This, coupled with the imminent demise of the San Francisco Chronicle, is just one more indication of how badly off both the economy and actual journalism are right now.

The last one, however, is just priceless.

Last week a Denver bus driver, while helping two elderly passengers cross the street at their stop, was hit by a truck. He was badly injured, but the story implies that he is recovering.

The priceless part? His actions were so praiseworthy and commendable that the Colorado State Police took note - and cited him for jaywalking.

Of course, the CSP also cited the driver of the truck and the other guy who was helping out (even though he wasn't struck), and they're continuing to investigate (apparently whether to cite the two passengers who needed help in the first place), so I suppose evenhandedness here was the rule of the day.

Given stories like these, I just do not understand what it takes to live there.

Stupid Americans, Part One

There are few things that get me going like US citizens acting like idiots in public. US travelers have a knack of doing the most self-centered, disrespectful, thoughtless and inconsiderate things imaginable abroad, which is a fairly good indicator of their behaviour at home. So this item from Random Pixels, while truly cringeworthy, comes as no surprise.

Miami Beach city officials were in a reception line for the King and Queen of Spain at the Wine and Food Festival.

Before the event, the city officials were briefed on proper royal etiquette which included what to say and what not to say, and above all the officials were told that under no circumstances were they to touch their Royal Highnesses.

...

Fast forward -- King and Queen moving along reception line greeting city officials when Miami Beach commissioner Jonah Wolfson - dressed in a "raggedy t-shirt and jeans" - reaches out and touches Queen Sofia's arm and asks her, "Hey Queen, can I get a picture?"

A security man quickly intervened and corrected the commissioner, "Please address her as Your Highness or Señora."

This is the sort of behaviour that gives US residents a bad name in other countries. Commisioner Wolfson didn't dress properly, didn't pay the least attention to the protocols, and essentially behaved like a crazed fan at a sports event trying to get a photo op with an athlete rather than a responsible representative of local government in the presence of a high-profile international guest (never mind royalty). One understands Shrubisms like the silly nicknames ("Pooty-poot" for example) and the inappropriate physicality (like the manhandling of Chancellor Merkel) in the light of events like this, though it hardly helps the US' global image.

Apparently this wasn't the only unfortunate incident of the event.

What Would You Suggest?

There is growing demand for accountability from the prior [mal]administration. Congress is finally hinting that it may investigate the Bush policies of the past and assess whether charges should be preferred. After the spectacular failures, missteps and overextension of authority and expenditures, something surely needs to be done.

But apparently not everyone thinks that accountability is a valuable component to public service.

David Rivkin and Lee Casey have penned a remarkable opinion (on TBO.com and credited as published in the Washington Post though it does not appear in that publication) claiming that an investigation such as those being considered is harmful to US institutions. Titled "Pouring Acid On Democracy," the article details consequences such as international criminal prosecution for those indicted by the proposed inquiries, and claims that the investigations would be counter to US democratic processes and theory of government.

The article goes to great lengths to imply broadly that the investigations are bad and should not be allowed to proceed. The authors invoke two demons: international prosecution and the legal circus of the special investigation. Yet they make little mention of the causes for public concern here, and their twin terrors have proven remarkably toothless.

The article makes absolutely no mention of what the authors would consider appropriate processes to address the horrific record of the Bush administration. There is no mention of conventional investigation, available legal processes or indeed any remedy of any kind. Apparently the authors think we're all better off simply forgetting the last eight years and moving forward, allowing the precedents set to stand unchallenged.

International criminal proceedings against those found culpable is a clear fear the authors share. Yet the International Criminal Court is at present weak and without solid enforcement, in no small part because of the US' failure to recognize the body and provide it support. The Obama administration and the current Congress seem inclined to change that stance, but at the present there is no means for a US citizen to be brought to ICC justice, and more than a few laws on US books allowing extraordinary intervention in ICC affairs to protect accused US citizens. Even if it were possible, the article makes no allowance for assertion of US jurisdiction or national sovereignty, which would almost certainly be preferred in this case; and as the US would be investigating and prosecuting its own citizens, that would take precedence over ICC proceedings even if such would carry weight in the present domestic climate.

Also, the authors are obsessed with the bogeyman of the Special Prosecutor. Without mentioning the Starr prosecution by name, they recall the specter of the fruitless efforts of that commission to find fault with the Clinton administration, and imply that such an experience is what the US should expect from any such investigation. The Starr investigation, whatever its origins, devolved into a witch hunt: the determination to find something wrong with the Clinton administration overrode the legal aspects and its own moral imperative. Given the apparent wealth of evidence to assail Bush with war crimes, illegal and unconstitutional acts and general incompetence and negligence in perfoming the duties of the various offices, the likelihood that we would see such again is small. And with the only alternative being a discredited Department of Justice still paralyzed by its ideological evisceration of late, alternatives to such a process are at best very hard to find. Again, the authors seem to think that messy processes that threaten to spin out of control are counter to the democratic tradition.

Democracy is many things, including both robust and messy. The US has survived multiple constitutional crises, trials, disagreements and upsets, going back to the Jay court and the concept of judicial review. Rivkin and Casey seem to think that US democracy is too fragile to go through the indignities of investigation, and too weak on the global stage to assert jurisdiction in criminal matters with global implications.

The tone of their opinion suggests they would prefer to forget everything and move forward, and they bring up false examples of nebulous political horrors as proofs for halting the proposed investigations. Yet their examples are toothless: the one is a recourse for states where the offending persons or institutions are not brought to justice by their own nations (and even so are not as yet recognised by the US); the other a blatantly partisan effort, allowed to exceed its mandate out of petty political ambition, and not likely to be repeated.

US democracy does, however, depend on two things: transparency and accountability. For the nation to function properly its workings must be as public as possible, and those in positions of authority must be held responsible for that authority and disciplined if necessary. Rivkin and Casey would deny these two requirements, preferring ignorance and immunity to the real responsibilities of citizens in a democratic nation. The article is the eloquent complaint of the educated bully: the writers are apparently afraid that the mean-spirited bloodthirsty methods of the Right might be used against them now that real crimes are in evidence, and rather than face that they prefer to forget everything and behave as if nothing untoward happened in the last eight years.

Taking Care Of Their Own - Or Not

It seems some GOP governors, unhappy with the federal stimulus package, are considering refusing the funds on principle. Somehow they consider this responsible.

The story broke in the Boston Globe:

BATON ROUGE, La. - A half-dozen Republican governors are considering turning down some money from the federal stimulus package, a move opponents say puts conservative ideology ahead of the needs of constituents struggling with foreclosures and unemployment.

Though none has outright rejected the money available for education, healthcare, and infrastructure, the governors of Alaska, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas have all questioned whether the $787 billion bill signed into law this week will help the economy.

Christopher Bean at Slate has the scoop:

"I'm better off not to get it," said Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin opposed the stimulus bill because it's "not fair to Alaskans to create expectations about programs that wouldn't be sustainable." Other governors, like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, said they were concerned about conditional funding. "My concern is there's going to be commitments attached to it that are a mile long," said Perry. "We need the freedom to pick and choose. And we need the freedom to say 'No thanks.' "

...

Say that all six governors—we're talking Texas, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alaska, Idaho, and Louisiana—rejected the stimulus outright. They would be saying "no" to a collective 424,000 jobs, according to White House estimates. They'd also be sniffing at a total of $3.8 billion for highways and bridges, $559 million for public transit, and $1.5 billion for education. And that's not including state-specific projects like Louisiana's $460 million for flood protection efforts, which include building locks and dams as well as coastal restoration. All told, they would be rejecting an estimated $69 billion.

You'd have to be crazy to turn down that kind of money, especially when states are so strapped. (Louisiana faces a $1.6 billion budget shortfall next year.) And so many of the GOP governors have backtracked. As much as it might offend them ideologically, they are willing to accept this federal largesse for the greater good of the citizens of [insert state here], who face unprecedented hardship as blah blah blah.

That's not a direct quote. But their rhetoric leaves the distinct impression that it is more than ideology that is driving their about-face.

Steve Benen agrees:

I really doubt it will get to that, even in these six states. We're talking about some genuine ideologues, but no one seriously wants to play Russian Roulette with their own state's economy... That these six are even exploring the possibility out loud, however, is a reminder of just how far gone some GOP contingents really are, and just what some 2012 hopefulls will stoop to in order to patronize the far-right Republican base.

The Anonymous Liberal gets right to the heart of the matter:

First there would be nothing principled about refusing Federal stimulus money. These very same governors routinely accept all sorts of federal money. In fact, if you rank states according to the ratio of federal money received per tax dollar contributed, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alaska are all in the top 4. South Carolina and Idaho are in the top 20 and receive significantly more in federal money than they contribute.

...

Moreover, they are doing so in direct contravention of the interests of their own constituents. These folks are not federal office holders. Their duty is to look after the interests of the people of their respective states, not to police the federal budget. If they were CEOs of a corporation or trustees of organization or trust, this kind of action would be seen as a breach of their fiduciary duties. They would get sued. And rightfully so. By turning down federal stimulus money, they would be inflicting harm on their own citizens.

If federal spending were such a priority for these people, then they ran for the wrong office. If you want to take the message of fiscal minimalism to Washington, don't do it from the governor's mansion - do it from Congress. There are distinct responsibilities that go with each position. A governor has the duty of doing what's best for his/her state with the resources s/he has, regardless of their origin. Posturing like what we see here is irresponsible and harmful to those goals, and if it turns out to be more than posturing the results could be catastrophic.

A week ago we were listening to loons in Congress that, without reading the bill, denounced it as unhelpful - even though their own constituencies benefited from the federal largesse. Now we have states that need that cash planning to turn it down out of federal fiscal responsibility. I'm beginning to wonder exactly what the GOP thinks is the function of public office if its governors take on the federal budget at the expense of their own states' economic health, and its Congresspeople can't even be bothered to learn whether their own constituents will be helped (or harmed) by the legislation that is theirs to pass.

UPDATE: Governor Jindal of Louisiana has confirmed that he's turning down federal stimulus dollars.

Saying that it could lead to a tax increase on state businesses, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that the state plans to reject as much as $98 million in federal unemployment assistance in the economic stimulus package.

Apparently, Jindal's position is he'd rather limit unemployed assistance now than worry about a possible tax increase on businesses three years from now.

The Politico reports that Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) "said he, too, would likely decline funds for broadening access to unemployment insurance." South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) may do the same, but hasn't "made any decisions on any part of the stimulus yet."

...

Jindal & Co. aren't worried about reality -- and they're certainly not worried about the unemployed -- when there's political grandstanding to be done.

That Didn't Take Long

One key difference between Democrats and Republicans is clearly visible on the issue of impeachment of the President. Even the nuttiest, most leftward-leaning Democrat seems to understand that impeachment is a serious process, requiring misdeeds in office of the highest order and involving not just removal from office but criminal proceedings. Republicans seem to think of it as an electoral do-over to oust somebody they just don't like all that much.

So, less than a month into Obama's first term, the far right has started to take up the cry for impeachment. Huffington Post has the story here.

I can recall, when many of us were calling for impeachment of GWB over the war in Iraq, the total mismanagement of disaster relief for the various hurricanes (Katrina included), the myriad signing statements that stated whether the [mal]administration would enforce or even recognize Congressional legislation, the whole domestic spying apparatus and other substantial misdeeds, that many moderate Democrats advised against it. Their reasoning was that seeking the removal of the President (and Vice President, as would have been necessary) would seem petty and vengeful after the Clinton business, and that such tools must be used cautiously. They admonished us that should we proceed with such a step the nation would be plunged into similar proceedings the next time a Democrat was elected President: somehow they believed if they refrained, the opposition would do the same.

Their hesitancy forced us to live through eight years of gross incompetence, blatant partisanship, and wanton disregard for any authority - domestic or international - in pursuit of an agenda even now not entirely clear beyond perpetual US predominance in the globe and Republican predominance in the US, obliteration of any and all opposition, and squandering federal funds and public resources to enrich a scant few. All that while poor policy decisions, infinitesimal oversight efforts and gross overspending laid the foundation for the current economic train wreck and the discrediting of the US on the global stage. Those of us who knew our opposition better tried to remind them that the far right had no such qualms, and would agitate for such for far less cause (as had already been proved) - to no avail.

As it turns out, the far right has not even the slightest hesitation to call for this most serious option, and seems ready to do this on the least plausible and flimsiest of grounds.

Not Again

David Broder at the Washington Post seems to think that the failure of the GOP to respond favorably to Obama's overtures means that - you guessed it - Obama should continue to reach out to the GOP.

The critics agree that the effort at bipartisanship should end.

I hope Obama isn't listening. It's the worst advice he has received.

It starts from a false premise: that the stimulus bill proves the failure of outreach to Republicans.

...

If Obama writes off the Republicans in advance, he will end up with a watered-down bill -- or nothing.

Broder then goes on to (wisely) praise Senators Collins, Snowe and Specter, and (far less wisely) point to them as examples of how bipartisanship is supposed to work. He goes on to mention other key figures in the country's bipartisan past, like Harry Truman and the Johnson/Dirksen/McCulloch triad. He also points to key figures in the current Congress who he thinks are necessary to particular policy items.

This argument is facile for this reason: the historical examples he cites are powerful figures precisely because they were the exceptions to the rule. They were a handful of persons in a large and otherwise intransigent body who had the foresight and courage to buck the party machinery and accomplish things. Had the Congresspeople Broder recognizes been truly following the bipartisan spirit they would have brought along far larger portions of their own party to at least compromise with their respective administrations. Their failure to do so makes them exceptional - exceptional as as much in not following the norm as in their work and achievements. The bipartisanship Broder promotes in their cases stem, not from the willingness of the majority to reach out to them, but their own courage to stand up to their colleagues and take the bold steps that were required. The current crop of Congressional Republicans has little such courage.

The argument, in the current climate, is flawed for other reasons.

The stimulus vote in the House (his shining example of bipartisan success), following the compromises with the Republicans, was actually closer than that on the original bill. Compromising with the moderate right actually cost Obama's plan votes in the House. The GOP remained a staunch anti-stimulus bloc, and the changes were enough to turn some would-be backers among the Democrats from continuing to support the package. Looking back to the last line I quoted, it seems already that, by not writing off the Republicans, the administration ended up with a watered-down bill anyway - and it lost Obama votes from his own party in the bargain. Constructive engagement of the opposition should result in broader, not narrower, support; in the current atmosphere achieving that broader support through bipartisan approaches does not seem especially likely.

Second, the GOP shows no sign of anything but a hardening of its positions despite the outreach. The three senators Broder lauds are now targets for Republican efforts to replace them with more doctrinaire absolutists simply because they were willing to work with the administration and their Democratic peers. The willingness he sees in the Republicans to negotiate, embodied in these three, is imperiled - not by calls for Obama to abandon his outreach but by the adamant anti-Democratic extremes from among their own ranks. In California, the same logic is already at work: the leadership of the party is being reshuffled simply because the leaders hinted they might be able to work with the majority, and intransigent hard-liners are filling those spaces. The opposition voices Obama would need to continue a bipartisanship approach are quickly being silenced.

Further, as the GOP increasingly takes its marching orders not from the moderates within its ranks but from the shrill right-wing fringe, the opportunities for such landmark achievements dwindle. The House minority leadership has already stated - more than a few times - that they intend to oppose Obama initiatives merely on principle. They have already shown that they have no interest in the details of Democratic proposals so long as the proposals do not originate from their own ranks. The content is immaterial: only the source matters. So far, the opponents of Democratic efforts are making themselves look very stupid, as their claims about the stimulus in particular are so easily disproved. However, the likelihood that they could find something they can denounce where their arguments are less simple to deconstruct is, given the language of most federal legislation, quite high, so it is possible that at some point the tactic might actually work. As the rank-and-file back bench takes its guidance ever more from Limbaugh et al and less from their leadership or even from their own local constituencies, the language becomes more extreme, more confrontational, less reasonable and less willing to compromise on anything. This is not a conducive environment for cross-party solutions.

Some of Broder's candidates for outreach also fall short of the measure of cooperative or amenable. McCain, in particular, is impossible to reach given his recent rhetoric and party-line voting record. None of his other examples have shown the slightest willingness to stray from their party's dogmatic opposition to anything that doesn't equate to tax cuts, expanded military and narrowly-constrained legislated morality. It seems foolhardy to continue to reach out to the opposition when the potential net gain is a mere three Senate votes.

In short, the early approach of the Obama administration to engage the Republicans has proved remarkably unproductive in the grand scheme. The odds of anything resembling successful cooperation grow longer as the GOP solidifies its know-nothing opposition and attacks those few among its ranks willing to listen to the administration and the majority in either house. The far right noise-making machine is trumpeting such intransigence as a victory and calling for more, and so far the back bench (which bipartisan efforts will need) appears to be listening. Had we a less adamant, less doctrinaire opposition party to deal with, bipartisanship would have merit. Without one there is little point in proceeding with such an approach. The outreach is indeed a failure - not of Democrat efforts, but rather of responsible stewardship and conscientious governance on the part of nearly all Republicans in Congress.

It's a pleasant fiction for Broder to imagine that somehow sufficient Congressional GOPers can be swayed to some acceptance of the Democratic policies. In this climate, though, it is definitely a fiction.

A Matter Of Control

North Dakota is attempting an end-run around the vindication of women's rights originally assumed assured by Roe v Wade.

Liss and Misty at Shakesville each have masterful takedowns on the item: go read them here and here. Both of them have much more experience, and far more justification, pointing out the sexist narrow-mindedness of such legislation, than I. There is little that I could add to their righteous condemnation of this recent step.

My question is this:

In this age of plummeting state revenues, these idiots have just created a whole new de facto state social programme. Yet these same people are the ones that complain vociferously about state spending, and particularly state spending on social programmes like what the new legislation simply cries out to implement.

The RWNM cries constantly that public expenditure on social programmes is wrong. It is a waste of resources; it encourages bad behaviour; it rewards the least competent, the indolent, the abusers of the system - the unworthy, in short.

Now we have a mandate from the state of North Dakota to provide exactly what the RWNM claims to oppose: public scrutiny of what until now has been a very private situation. If "personhood" begins at conception, then all manner of potential crimes suddenly face the expectant. How does the State intend to fend off these offenses without implementing monitoring and enforcement regimens?

The simple answer is that the drafters of this legislation haven't thought that far; that this is simply a shaming mechanism to oppress the sexually active (particularly the sexually active woman) and maintain an outmoded and impractical notion of civic order. Prevention is not the goal. Rather, the intent is the exploitation of those caught in the newly legal web of impropriety in order to maintain their concepts of an ordered society.

There is, however, a possible, more complex answer. The parties behind the new law actually want this agenda pursued by the State. It is in keeping with the support of the now-vast Homeland Security apparatus and enhanced intelligence gathering: these efforts create a new observation state to intimidate dissent and encourage political and social orthodoxy.

The continued infiltration and eavesdropping on peaceful groups in the name of anti-terror efforts is harmonious with this new law. Through their invocation of national security, the intelligence agencies, DHS and local police forces enabled the observation of any group deemed "Unamerican:" groups so targeted included the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers), antiwar activist groups and social equality advocates. By expanding the definition of "Unamerican" to include unintended pregnancy, the same groups that seek to re-form society to their perceived norms get one more weapon in their arsenal. And if doing so expands the public sphere that is a small price to pay, since now that expansion will fall under law enforcement and not social engineering.

If this sounds like a stretch, consider this: the same advocates of Amendment 2 in Florida and Proposition 8 in California, after assuring voters that these measures were not intended to strip rights from anyone, have commenced campaigns in both states to annul or revoke any benefits - public or private - for unmarried couples of any sexual persuasion under the provisions of the new laws, and are turning a blind eye to the rise in hate crimes that are accompanying their passage. Likewise, similar efforts as the North Dakota law have been used to run family planning out of other states and have encouraged practicing gynecologists to leave for less restrictive communities. And the national brouhaha that was the Terri Schaivo case proved that the Conservatives will eagerly engage whatever public bodies it deems necessary - along with all their attendant machinery - to achieve their goals. None of these are the actions of a group that values a hands-off public policy.

Of course, opposition to these moves is strong, so the likelihood of their success is low. But by pursuing these lines, those behind this push have made their goals clear: creation of a society aligned along their moral standards and criminalisation of any variation from those standards. These are not the values of a democracy.

Jumping The (Pool) Shark

... or, You Keep Using That Word, Part Two.

Apparently, a couple weeks back, a 'blogger penned a snarky little piece of satire stating that the administration was planning to replace the armed services oath's language swearing fealty to the Constitution with language swearing fealty to the President.

It was labeled satire. The byline was of a non-existent journalist. And the rest of the site is similarly smartly irreverent. It was clearly humour.

Some, apparently, either didn't get it, or didn't want to.

The label got left off and his bogus story was quickly copied and pasted on blogs, zapped around the country through chain e-mails, and discussed in YouTube commentaries. Many people didn't bother to verify it and responded with comments of outrage.

...

Some blogs were eventually corrected, or people posted comments that said the article was a fake, but others still carry the fake article. Brent Johnson, a radio host who posted the item on his Voice of Freedom blog, said he posted it without verifying it because "This is one of those stories where, if it is true, is so, so serious. It’s the kind of thing people need to know about in the chance it is true."

Before long the Digg website, YouTube, the Tree of Liberty 'blog, and various right-wing personalities had fallen for the fake story, trumpeting it in that "end of the world" tone as if it were true.

It's apparent from the article that more than a few still do not believe the article was not genuine.

I'm continually amazed that people who have shown a remarkable affinity to fascist governmental forms would be so quick to use the label of fascism as if it were a bad thing. Own your bias: don't be shy. When Communists, Immigrants and Unworthy Ethnic and Social Minorities are threatening your way of life, call them out in just those terms. It may not be as palatable to the rest of us, but it'll be far more accurate.

The State / Federal Disconnect

It seems the GOP is behind Obama - at least in the governors' mansions:

Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.

Maybe it's all those balanced budget requirements that makes the difference. Maybe it's being closer to the ground - to the populace - that causes the connection. And maybe it's actually running a state and not being able to indulge in pointless posturing that does it. Whatever it is, obviously running a state makes for a more pragmatic - more conservative - approach to such issues than merely sitting in Congress.

As the article indicates, this situation is hardly new. GOP governors have long opposed the excesses of party dogma when Washington tried to enforce political orthodoxy. The Contract With America faced stiff opposition when it came to curtailing domestic programmes, and much of that came from the party's own state leaders. Yet for whatever reason the GOP leadership and its punditry continue to push the same tired mantras of lower domestic spending, reduced taxes and other cure-alls, even in the face of opposition from the people who, without those efforts, might actually be on board with them to accomplish meaningful party objectives. It almost looks like a generational issue: the grown-up state leaders versus the spoiled children sent away to Capitol Hill.