Well, someone in the White House knows how to play chess

The NYT editorial all the cool kids are talking about. It's a masterful bit of information warfare. The question, though, is who is it aimed at?

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright."

The president is not a conservative? For some part this is true, however, and this can not be overstated, the GOP is Trump's party. He owns, if not the intellectual course, the rabid base. He owns and represents that 32% of conservative Americans who aren't going anywhere. Trump is a conservative, but here is a way to distance "True Conservatism" from the damage Trump is inflicting on the country. This is the "True Scotsman" fallacy.

"There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."

See, those things conservatives run on are "good" and the "highlights" of his administration.

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

Hi, have you meet conservative talk radio, InfoWars, or Fox News?

There is the discussion of everything we all can see. The chaos. His inability to think clearly or hold a position longer than a bowel movement. Of which the editorialist calls him a "flip-flopper." There's a tell. Intentionally planted, or a mistake? His love for tyrants and absolute rulers. His disdain for long time allies and his embrace of our enemies. Yes, we all see that.

There is a tribute to McCain which rings hollow. It's a recognition of popularity (and the obvious and overt hagiography) of McCain this past last weekend.

"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

This is seeing the coming blue wave. If all is true, President Trump will not be the only one sunk by this sea of inequity. The wolves are at the door and they have the scent of the kill. Those associated, who participated, who actively supported and helped bring about this presidency, the appointees, employees, spear carriers and generals will all carry scarlet letters of association.

The NYT states this is a senior staffer, and I accept that they verified this. But the questions of motive still remain.

Is this a distraction from Kavanaugh? The waving hand of the stage magician meant to distract you?

Is this an attempt to call off the dogs? A move to allay our worst fears and maybe take off some of the pressure of Mueller's investigation? Maybe blunt the over enthusiasm of the left for the coming election? See, the president won't do the worst things in your imagination, we have people inside who will stop him. If so, I don't buy it. The president has shown his propensity to bulldoze ahead. Yes, the worst will come. It's already here, the stage has been set.

Is this an attempt to pre-re-write history? Again, all in the administration and all the lap dogs will be marked for complicity. Is this a move to leave doubt that maybe some of them aren't so bad? Should we throw them all to the wolves? Surely there are "good people" who "tried their best" among them. Again, I'm not buying it. If you feel such, resign. Do so publicly and with great fanfare. We don't have the function of a parliamentary government to hold votes of no-confidence. The only way to force the issue is to create the Constitutional Crisis we all know is really going on. End the charade, abandon the president, call for impeachment, force the enactment the 25th Amendment.

Is it an attempt to throw themselves on the mercy of the court? "We were with you all along." Again, I don't buy it.

Go peddle crazy somewhere else, we're all full here.

The president will rant and rave. He'll put on a good show and distract us for a few days. Sand will be thrown in the eyes of the charging bull. And the president may survive the mid-term elections. The Democrats will take the House, but by what margin? What about the Senate? How much has this president, the champion the base clamored for since 2004, tarnished the brand of conservatism? Is it on the surface and can be buffed away, or will it involve welding new material?

No, this is disinformation. This is a bold faced attempt to save the president, save the GOP, save their asses from the fire.

I'm not buying it.

Linkee-poo special

So, today the Trumpster made a gaff and said that if abortion is made illegal, women who have abortions should be punished. He later walked back that statement (while at the same time saying his position hasn't changed, see earlier statements on how the Trumpster talks and tries to get things both ways). He did this because there was tremendous outcry against that position, including from the anti-abortion crowd who said they would never go that far.

Oh, reeeeeeally?

Rennie Gibbs in Mississippi, Purvi Patel in Indiana, Amanda Kimbrough in Alabama, Nina Buckhalter in Mississippi (again), Melissa Ann Rowland in Utah, Bei Bei Shuai in Indiana, and others. All of these mothers are being prosecuted because their children were either stillborn or died shortly after birth. All charged under laws protecting the health of the fetus (most charged with ingesting drugs or poison to intentionally cause the death of the fetus). It took me longer to type this paragraph than it did to google the articles.

So let me call bullshit on the anti-abortion movement. They really do want to make abortion illegal and inaccessible to women, and then prosecute those who may try to do it themselves. They also are coming for your birth control (as previously linked to).

Dear media outlets, this is part of what we mean when we say that you need to report on what is happening, not just say, "this person said this." But that requires smart people doing the reporting, and the courage of the news outlets to upset the people they report on. This isn't hidden knowledge, but it does require actual effort. As you can see it doesn't require much effort.

Thoughts on the Campaign on Donald Trump

And here I will pause for a moment. In my twitter feed there has been a lot of people talking about being at that moment in Weimar Republic and there being a funny looking little guy with dangerous ideas rousing up the folk, and just what were we going to do about it, President Hindenburg? And I'm not entirely sure they're wrong anymore. Donald Trump is just as ignorant as the people he's whipping into a frothy mixture with stiff peaks. But he's smart enough to play that ignorance, the be the populist to that demographic. Hindenburg and his intelligentsia laughed at the funny little man. And then, three years later, he appointed him Chancellor with emergency powers. Because laughing up our sleeves doesn't counter his message.

And, yes, I've just Godwin'ed my own post. It's intentional.

I am as guilty as the next person for making the Trumpster the butt of the joke (see all the Linkee-poos since, I don't know, July?). I'm not going to stop at that, but I've never discounted him or the rage he's tapping into. It's a dangerous path he's trending, and to mix my metaphor, that high-voltage live wire he has grasped may just turn on him. He has shown he knows how to wield it. Not everything has gone his way, but that power is intoxicating and the people around him are getting a contact high from it.

His rise needs to be checked, and that may mean some of us will need to grab that hot end of that live wire. My tool of choice is ridicule, to play the fool, but my voice is small. Together our voice is louder. It may be that New Hampshire breaks the campaign (I'm laying odds he wins Iowa), it has done so in the past. However, the Trumpster has broken the patterns of the past ("he'll fade by Fall", "He won't make it past the tides of October", "We'll see his numbers fall by Thanksgiving when people really start to make up their minds and get serious"). The Trumpster is doing quite well with the theory, "There go my people, I must leave to go lead them." The undercurrent of hate and pent up anger (yes, to these people, it's still pent up) is a strong tide he can ride right into office. I can't let that happen. The rest of the GOP field appears better only because of the comparison to the lunacy of the Trumpster. He's a dangerous lunatic, fueled by narcissism and his internal stories. He's taken on the mantle of the Voice of the People. That's a major step.

His rallies are not safe places to contradict him (I give props to the Black Lives Matter Movement and Jorge Ramos for trying, those people have put their health and safety on the line). A head-to-head confrontation will lead to violence. Not from the Trumpster himself, but from his followers who have reached a point where they will tolerate no dissent. In these types of movements, the front men never get their hands dirty, and there are toadies a plenty who will volunteer to do the work. The Trumpster needs to be countered before we reach a state of not being able to stand up to him.

Many people who remind us to think of the Nazis and not wanting to repeat history have an incomplete knowledge of that history. Before the Holocaust, before the Nazis rounded up the crippled, mentally ill, handicapped, and then gay people for extermination there was the Night of the Long Knives when Hitler and his cronies assassinated anyone that might challenge him for power (including many leading Nazis and Brownshirts).

Right now everyone is discounting the Trumpster's chances. And none more loudly than those on the right. The establishment of the GOP is already conceding they may be losing control, and the Trumpster has made even Chairman Reince Priebus apologize and make nice (so there's not going to be any King Richard moment coming). He's formed a co-dependent relationship with Roger Ailes. He is coopting the power structure of the party.

They all say he won't last past Iowa. And even if he makes it to the nomination, Hillary will stomp all over that parade. I am not as certain. A small victory in Iowa could be enough to propel him to the nomination (it hasn't happen for the past 20+ years, but again he is breaking all known patterns). Even a strong showing (but an over all loss) in Iowa might be enough. And then as we on the left laugh, scoff, and point at the ignorance and fear mongering suddenly we wake up November 9th to President-Elect The Donald. And that's a hang-over I don't want to experience. Again, this is the actual lesson of history.

So understand when I make fun of him, I'm dancing in front of the King with my jester stick firmly in hand, looking for an opening to twist the (metaphorical and/or political) knife in.

If I'm successful we can tie all the bastards together so we only have to find one weight to sink them to the bottom (I grew up in southern NJ, it's a thing there).

Terrorism 101

Terrorism is used to provoke an unlawful, disproportionate response that violates citizens expectation of rights and protections. By doing so a government breaks the social contract with citizens, which leads to questioning the right of that government to exist. Long term fear leads to anger, anger leads to blame. People blame their government for not protecting them. This leads to revolution, which is the terrorists' goal. The overthrow of governments by the citizens.

Terrorists are political animals. They don't eat, shit, or piss unless their politics tells them to do so. The are revolutionaries who realize their own cause can't draw enough people or funds to actually cause the revolution. So they turn to terrorism and wait for the targeted governments/societies to tear themselves apart. In that chaos they hope to emerge in a position of power, however they have accepted they may all die to get there.

So every idiot out there who tells you that you should be afraid, afraid of refugees fleeing these same terrorists, strangers, your government, your fellow citizens, they are doing the work of the terrorists for them. Donald Trump saying he would bomb ISIS is falling into that trap (if it were that easy, drop a few bombs, we would be way past the time when they were all dead). Every idiot saying "we should kill all the muslims" is doing the work of the terrorists. That's exactly what ISIS/al Qaeda wants us to do. Every Congressperson and Senator who says we shouldn't close Gitmo and handle these people as either criminals or repatriate them is doing the work of the terrorists.

This is how they work. They divide us up, make us come to the conclusion that only revolution will cure us of the disease. Drive us to remove rights and oppress others, violate our own laws and societal customs. All of this is exactly what the terrorist wants. Even to the point of their own extinction, this is what they want.

Because the ultimate goal is to kill off the targeted government. If the terrorists survive to take advantage of the situation, that's just the icing on top.

Don't fall into their trap.

And, yes, so far they're winning because G. W. Bush forgot that lesson once he walked back into the White House on 9/11 and fell prey to the chickenhawks in his administration. You only have to look at the racist, isolationist, chest beating responses to the Paris attacks to see that they are winning. Look at how Europe is responding. That's because they have had decades longer experience dealing with terrorism (especially when it was home brewed). They know this playbook better than we do.

Bang, Bang Crazy - my own story

I fucking hate people. Don't get me wrong, individually I love some of you. I'm awfully fond of a larger number of you. I care deeply for a large number of you. And a great hunk of you, well, you're all right (wink).

Then there's the rest of humanity. Mostly ignorant, panicky, unpredictable, anti-vaxxer and generally clogging up the malls at Christmas Time. You know what I'm saying?

And it's near Fourth of July. I love fireworks… when done by professionals. If you have anything more than a bottle rocket or lady-fingers (do kids still call them that?) you piss me off. When I hear a mortar going off in my neighborhood I start entertaining fantasies of slipping up on these people in the dark and trying to remember the exact angles for an under the ribs thrust, where to target the kidneys, and how to quickly slit a throat. Tell me you haven't entertained those thoughts as well. Tell me you haven't had the thought, "I bet they blow their fingers off, or start a fire." Today we had a discussion at the day thing where people were all too happy to say they love it, that sound of launching mortars. That "thumpt" sound. How one guy watched Americans in Mexico launching rockets on the beach, landing them on people's tents who were camping on the beach, melting the fabric. Fun times. Fun times.

So what I'm saying is, I was a little primed.

After work I went to the Oakwood Village Sam's Club to pick up things for this weekend. Oakwood is an interesting mixture of people. There are some richer, whiter suburbs nearby, but it's right around the eastern Cleveland industrial suburbs and lower-income housing, and has a large percentage of African-American neighborhoods (Cleveland is still pretty segregated, the lingering effects of intentional segregation actions of realtors and banks from the 60s to the 80s). The crowd at the store is about a 50/50 mix of white and minority (mostly African-American, but a good mix of Asian and Hispanic, probably 10% or so). Most of the workers are African-American (70-80%). It's someplace that I am very conscious of not being "in the majority". This isn't a problem. I don't feel unwelcome, it's just something I notice.

(ed note I didn't express myself very well here, let me try again. Oakwood is the beginning of the outer suburbs of Cleveland. The area is a mix of working class, middle class, upper-middle class neighborhoods with richer neighborhoods to the east, farther into the outer suburbs. The closer in to Cleveland from this direction (SE) the higher the percentage of minorities. Just a little north from here, along Mayfield, there is a lot more diversity of population in neighborhoods. In this area (and much of the East of Cleveland) you can find African-American families in all the communities (from working class to rich, with a large percentage in the middle and upper-middle class neighborhoods in this area). The percentages drop a little in the working class neighborhoods (which tend to be the most diverse). However East Cleveland, and it's suburbs, still have the lingering effects of so many decades of overt, and then covert, racial segregation and white flight. Their are neighborhoods were in one block, the ethnic demographics of the community change quickly, even though the relative income levels remain the same. Cleveland's diversity is like a patchwork quilt.)

I'm leaving the club, the young couple in front of me (white, from one of the richer suburbs judging by their clothing and items in the cart, some prepared meals, no staples) is having some problems wrangling their kids to get across the driveway in front of the store. So I'm making my move to the right outside to get around them. Area is filled with people packing up cars, line coming out of the store (pretty sure the couple and myself are the only white people in the group coming out of the store).

A red Pontiac Grand Prix (the trunk is distinctive, it's a common car for this neighborhood), pulls into the aisle way in front of us and stops, the trunk pops, and a late twenties white guy, "athletic build" gets out of the passenger side. He has a gun in his right hand. Small rifle, probably 22-short, lever action.

At this moment the adrenaline hits. Some smart part of my brain says, "this is going down now, Buchheit, you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. They're burning churches, at least one in Ohio." The larger part of my brain is shouting "FUCK FUCKER FUCKITY FUCKER FUCK!"

There's a crowd. There is no cover. A step and I'm around the mother and kids. I now have the cleanest approach. I have a Sam's Club cart (large, about 40-50lbs) with about 50-60 lbs in it (juice and other things). I have no protection and I'm 20 feet away.

"FUCK FUCKER FUCKITY FUCKER FUCK!"

And that, judge, is when time proverbially slows down. There's a driver (obviously), I believe someone else was in the back. The car is a coup, not a big worry about the person in back. Guy, while built, doesn't have a fully balanced stance, isn't walking with purpose (he's taken maybe one step at this point).

The plan outlines itself in my head. No time to save people, no place to hide behind. But I have that cart, he hasn't raised the rifle yet. He won't expect resistance so quickly. I take a large step forward, knees bent, lowering my center of gravity and extending my stride. Plan finalized, I have my approach, it is non-verbal but goes something like this.

No chance of defense, offense then. The person in the back won't be able to get out of the coup in time, they're behind the driver. I can't see the driver but can guess their position from the car, they're blocked from seeing what will happen. I have 4 steps to get speed. He won't expect the cart. He'll raise the hand with the rifle in it to protect himself. I can grab the barrel. I can spin it out of his grip, go counter clockwise (pulling him forward into the cart and then away). As long as he doesn't fire I'll have the gun. If he fires, it's gonna burn. Continue spin, butt whip at the neck-shoulder junction as hard a possible. This will stop my spin and put me in a good spot to drop to a shooting position and shoot the driver. Next shot will be the stunned gunman. And then I'll deal with person in back.

I don't recognize the gun. It's obviously lever-action (first ping in my head). I know how those work. Who knows what condition it's in.

Why the fuck did they pop the trunk? (Second ping)

He's not holding it correctly (third ping). His hand is over the trigger guard, he's not holding it by the grip, still single-handed (ping). He's taken his third step now.

Something is wrong. Why is the trunk open? The Washington DC sniper set up a nest in their truck. But why get out of the car then? (ping) Why a 22-short? (ping)

Half step.

There are groceries in the trunk (ping). Who goes shopping before shooting?

He's not moving correctly. No balance, no attempt to raise the rifle.

Stop, hold cart back yanking arms. Probably look like I just tripped. This isn't right. Time resumes normal flow.

Person puts gun in trunk and closes it. I breathe again.

I've stopped in the driveway. My heart is hammering. Every cell in my body is still screaming. But he no longer has gun. He gets back in passenger seat they drive away.

He was wearing a t-shirt and kakis (olive drabbish). Probably works somewhere doing something physical, or used to play football (has a fullback's shape). And I want to slap the ever-loving shit out of him.

I don't know who you are, but, dude, you are so fucking lucky I don't have a firearm and wasn't carrying. You are also lucky that I have some skills left and part of my brain questioned what the other part had already determined what was happening. If I had a firearm on me, you would have been dead, and probably the driver as well. You took off before I could recover fully. Which was probably good for both of us.

In retrospect, you probably realized it was a Bad Idea™ to drive that neighborhood with an gun in the open. Hell, it might have been just an air rifle (although there was no orange tip or cartridge, all black matt finish).

You probably don't know just how close you came to grievous injury.

When I'm around police officers and I feel they aren't respectful of the weapons they carry I want to disarm them. If you're not in uniform, I feel the need to disarm you.

Why the fuck did you stop in the middle of the crowd, right at the exit of the store, to move this gun to your trunk? It's a big parking lot, there's plenty of space at the edge.

My chest still hurts. I'm still a little shaky. I'm having difficulty focusing on other things.

This is why this gun culture is bad (besides the "accidental" shootings and feeding the pipeline for guns to get to criminals). This is why the mantra "More Guns Make Us Safer" is a bunch of bullshit. If you own a firearm you are responsible for it, and for how you behave with it. The problem is, while you may think you're being responsible, you might not be. My guess is this guy thought he was being perfectly reasonable and "safetying" the weapon.

Jesus on a Pogo Stick that was close.

"FUCK FUCKER FUCKITY FUCKER FUCK!"

Too long for twitter

There are some days I just get tired of the BS.

Dear Speaker Boehner and several conservative members of Congress,

You say the President has broken the law. That he has gone beyond his Constitutionally given powers. You've said this multiple places and multiple times. Time to call the bluff.

If the President has gone beyond his Constitutional powers, if he has ignored the law, if he continues to break the law as you state, you have only one course of action. You must vote on impeachment for his crimes. You must. It's you fucking goddamn duty. It's your charge in the balance of powers. It's your duty under the Constitution of which you claim to uphold and know more than the rest of us and carry in the breast pockets of your suits.

You must (and let me reiterate that by shouting, "MUST") vote to impeach him.

If you don't, you are just as guilty of breaking the law and ignoring the Constitution. If you don't you are cowards hiding behind words. If you don't you're just using these words to pillage the bank accounts of the gullible for your own benefit.

Let me say this again. If you believe these things are true, as you have publicly stated many times, you MUST vote for impeachment proceedings. And if you don't, I am calling you coward, right here.

If what you say is true, there is no other explanation.

So I'm calling you out now. Vote. Or sit down and STFU. There's too much work to be done otherwise.

The Treachery of Images

Of relevance to the day thing, it was time to revamp this classic.

Also
Ceci n'est pas une author.

The Lamentable State of the Business Today

Or why I'm doing the reboot.

Why the design market sucks. here's one example from Monster. Looking for a Graphic Designer/Assistant Manager to handle co-managing a team plus be responsible for 100+ "multiple page" publications within 4 months (4x4x5=80 days, which means 1+ large publications per day). Plus communications with their 100+ customer base. And what are they willing to pay? $13-15 an hour (or $27,040 to $31200 a year). "Company confidential"? Why, so we won't egg your place? Dear company confidential, same you pal, and the horses you rode in on. Seriously? The sad part is they're probably swamped with resumes. More fodder for the reboot.

I guess it could be worse. You could be applying for "This position is your opportunity to join a respected organization that is redefining media advertising in Northeast Ohio by offering an extensive portfolio of digital and print media solutions." :: rolls-eyes :: The small print, "Northeast Ohio Media Group is a new, digitally focused company…" So, a brand new company that's respected and redefining advertising. That's some shit slinging right there. Oh yea, the title is "Part-time", but the description is "full-time". That's redefining all right.

Last but not least is this designer position who is basically responsible for everything. I mean everything. Writing, layout, proof-reading, and all their social media out reach (that's 3 full-time jobs right there). Plus, "Possess strong graphic design skills." Oh yea, there's also the "Demonstrate strong computer skills including proficiency in Microsoft Office Applications…" (meaning they want you to design print ads using Powerpoint). And what education do they want? "Associates or Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university preferably in English, Marketing, or Business Administration." Uh, yea, Bob.

You're joking me, aren't you

This morning on the way in to work there was plenty of discussion about how the CT State Police might release what they believe is the motive for the Newtown killings. With the heady addition of, "and then we'll know."

Really?

No. Seriously. Really?

This is the motive of someone who shot their Mother in the head several times. And then, just for giggles, went to his old elementary school and shoot the youngest kids there. And now you expect the internal motivations of this person to make any sense?

I understand this is a "search for answers." The reality is, "there are no good answers." Part of the healing process for the nation needs to be to accept that truth. There are no good answers here. Something was going to set this off. Low blood sugar, only getting 3 ketchups at the drive-thru when you specifically ask for 5-8, a low flying airplane, something.

But I'm sure something will come of it and we all feel safe once we ban kids from wearing leather dusters, wearing black, or coming in costume to movies. Because that's what's really responsible. Just like we all have to take our shoes off when we go through the airport because it's the shoe's fault. Thankfully backscatter x-ray machines arrived just in time to avoid making the TSA screening area look like a clothing optional community after the underwear bomber.

I'm stickin' to the union

Look, okay, you want "Right to Work"? Fine. Here's the deal that should be made. If you decide not to joint the union in a union shop, you are not covered under the union contract and your employer can not use the union contract as the basis for your pay or benefits. Also, you do not accumulate seniority (placing you at the bottom of the list no matter how long you work there, until you joint the union - seniority would start accumulating when you join the union). You are not covered under union rules for redress or position protection. You are not entitled to union representation during reviews or disciplinary matters. Nor are you dismissed for union activities (if you have them in your shop). You are "Right to Work" which means "at will" work. Also protect payroll deduction for union dues and pensions. Seriously, this is why you have a payroll department or service (and if you don't, more than likely you're not big enough to have a union either). Accept those terms, enforce those rules on business, and sure, I'll accept "Right to Work" legislation.

If not, Right to Work is an entitlement program benefiting people who contributed nothing to the program to begin with. And aren't conservatives morally opposed to "entitlements"?

Edited to add You know how in 2010 the Tea Party and other disaffected conservatives voted in majorities of Republic legislatures, governors, and the House of Representatives to nominally put our nation back on fiscal track. And then those new Republican majorities set out to strip women of their reproductive rights, deny gays equal protection under the law, and make futile votes to "Repeal Obamacare"? You know, everything but passing a budget that could work, making tax reform work (that mythical rewritting and simplifying the tax code that's been in the works since, what, 1996), and "righting the fiscal ship of state". So now it appears these two years will be devoted to "how much of the state can we dismantle to give employers their right to screw over their employees as much as possible." This is why whenever any conservative touts how they're "more fiscally responsible" then those tax and spend liberals, I've taken to laughing in their faces. The GOP is no longer focused on the fiscal stuff. They are social conservatives (who really aren't "conservative" as much as "retro") 24/7/365. It was my hope the Tea Party might skew them back to fiscal matters, but they've also been co-opted by social conservatives.

The final argument why I could never vote for Mitt Romney

It's because of the Romney "Jeep/Chrysler/Fiat is taking jobs to China" ad (and now it's two ads from what I understand). Here is an NPR story about the ad with it's history and progress.

It started a comment in a campaign stop where Mitt Romney said he read an article in Bloomberg saying Fiat, who owns a controlling stake in Chrysler, was moving the Jeep jobs in Ohio (Toledo) to China. Okay, I can accept that in the rush of the campaign he read, or was told about, the article and how Jeep was going to add jobs to their production in China and it got all twisted around. It's a fast passed campaign.

But then Chrysler came out and clarified what they were doing. No, in fact they're expanding production in Toledo. The China jobs were always China jobs and the Chinese production is for sale only in China.

The Romney Campaign persisted in saying, "ZOMG, jobs to China. Your bailout money!"

Then Bloomberg issued a clarification saying, that's not what our article said.

And then the Romney Campaign released the ads (this is the TV ad).

Then the fact checkers weighed in. Another pants on fire rating. Last I checked, not only was the Romney Campaign leading in false claims, their ratings for those ads skew to the worse end of the rating scales.

And then the Romney Campaign doubled down with more ads. They've adjusted how they say it but while grammatically not saying the same thing, the difference isn't noticeable by more than grammatical enthusiasts. The ad reads the same to everybody else.

Like I said, I can understand misreading an article. I've seen that a lot. "That word you're using. I dunna think it means what you think it means." Oh yeah, I've had that conversation a lot. It's even happened to me enough times that I try to double read things, verify with other sources (when I have time), etc. So, at the campaign stop, okay, it was wrong but understandable. Fair cop.

But to continue to use the line that has been proven wrong, been proven wrong to your campaign, been proven wrong to your face, been proven wrong in the public sphere, to continue that argument is either a sign of complete incompetence, being whipped by the process, or a complete, sneering contempt of the American public. This ad is aimed at the low-information voter, which typically tends to fall into the same demographic as the 47% Romney doesn't care about (in the Veen diagram of both of those, there is significant overlap, for some very obvious reasons that when your at the lower end of the economy, your attention is being spent living, it's basic Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs).

It's because of that (the contempt, the inability to admit mistakes, and the shameless ability to lie) that I could never vote for Mitt Romney. I wouldn't even trust him (as the saying goes) as dog catcher. How he is polling as high as he is points to a moral failing as a nation.

As I've said before, I was really looking forward to this election as one based on ideals and vision. A challenge of ideas of how to make a stronger country. Instead we got this shit. Mitt isn't the first conservative (or liberal) I've come to this conclusion about. When John McCain started his presidential bid by speaking at Jones University, he lost my vote (in 2000, McCain's bid was based on getting the GOP out from under the yoke of the religious right). Mitt Romney's campaign hasn't gone twice as bad, they've described a hyperbolic curve in how far they've veered away. What's worse is that either way the election goes, the GOP won't learn the lessons they should. If Mitt Romney is elected, his strategy will be vindicated. If Mitt Romney loses, the GOP will rationalize the loss by claiming voter fraud, and that they hadn't chosen a candidate that was sufficiently conservative.

Sears Parts Direct

Really Sears Parts Direct? You don't have the ability to cancel or edit orders less than an hour old (well, they can't do that for any order)? Yes, I put in the wrong part number (right type of part, wrong size) and that's my fault. However, I found the error quickly (1 number difference) and tried calling to get the change. So now I have to pay for two expedited shipments.

It's now 2012, you might want to get with the times. I've been able to do that with other companies for at least the past 5 years now. This is the second time I've had to use Sears Parts Direct, the first time I was sent the wrong part (your fault). And now I have to get parts for my water heater. Which, btw, expedited shipping takes 3 days?

Imagine how I feel about your service. I certainly hope you ship the correct parts this time. I'll just have to process the one for a return. I'll have to swallow the second expedited shipping fee. It would be really, really bad for me to be paying half the price of the water heater to fix the burner, of which we'll be without hot water for 4 days, only to have that delayed even longer.

I wonder when I need a part again if I'll use your site?

The lamentable state of protest today

This post was provoked by Eric's post about this protestor. Fred Clark has his own post here asking evangelicals to look at the world and realize, before anybody really knew anything, they were calling this guy an evangelical, because of his actions (sung to the tune of "They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Love").

Really, WTF people? This is a protest. You just don't have the first shitting clue, do you? You drive up to a General Mills Plant way the hell out front where nobody can see you and are trying to be so quick that you don't even pour the cereal you want to light into the bowl first, but try and light it as you pour. And then you're worried about burning the lawn.

Well, you have some concern there. What you're doing is criminal trespass, arson and burning without a permit (I'm assuming here), and if you torch the lawn that's criminal vandalism. And you don't want to have to pay a ticket or anything like that.

Sigh.

Okay, here I'll make the disclaimer that I'm not advocating that you should break laws or go to jail because those are really bad things to have happen to you. Try and get a job in this market with a record (he said as someone who had to go through a background check just to take classes in the healthcare industry). Doing property damage, even in the case of civil disobedience is a crime. IF you do a crime as protest, if you do it well you should expect to go to jail. But this? You know what, if you really believe, if you're really incensed, if you're so gosh darn sure the country is going to hell in a handbasket, then don't pee into the wind, okay?

This kind of protest in the video above is mental masturbation. It's only for you, and you're getting yourself off. This isn't protest, this is, "oh looky, I'm so upset, I'm going to do something that won't change a farging thing."

It's akin to the whole Freedom Fry joke of a protest. Renaming your French Fries and French Toast and French Dressing to Freedom Whatever doesn't do shit. It's sitting in the corner holding your breath to get someone to change an answer you don't like when that person is neither your parent, your guardian, doesn't know you from Adam or Steve and really isn't even looking in your general direction let alone in the same room as you. Or in other words, all you're going to do is either breathe through your nose or pass out and wake up later with a headache. Think France gets a penny every time you order fries, toast, or put red dressing on your salad? Hell, those things didn't even come from France in the first place, they're American as all get out.

What's closer to real protest was dumping French wine down the sewer. Only you paid for it first before dumping it. I'm sure the vineyards in France and their Export Ministers were quaking in their berets over there. Would you mind so very much if they shipped us a few of the extra cases of spoiled wine that we could pay for and dump? They'll even make you a special label. Doesn't matter if it's spoiled because we won't be drinking it, you darn Frenchies. Take That! Ha ha. Wait, what do you mean my credit card is maxed out. Oh damn. Time to call it off and go home and use Russian Dressing on our salads.

Sigh.

The Tea Party in one of their first go arounds on the Mall in Washington DC got a whole truck load of tea bags (hopefully Lipton, not one of those imports… wait for it) that they were going to dip into the Reflecting Pool on the Mall to show just how righteously pissed they were. Only they couldn't get a permit to drive the truck onto the Mall nor to dip their tea bags. Something about not muddying the waters or some such. And that was it. The truck went home, everybody bought souvenirs and corn dogs. Because you know our forefathers not only bought the ships and the tea on them in Boston (and all the other places that had "Tea Parties" back in the Revolution), but they asked awfully nicely if they could toss some of it over. Thank the gods there were no environmentalists to wail about all those fishes hyped up on caffeine. Ah, it was a better time then. Wait, what were we talking about. Oh yeah, those Revolutionaries were such a nicely mannered bunch, weren't they?

Look, here's what you do when the dumb asses stamp "denied" on your permit. You get about forty people to haul the boxes of tea down to the protest and just dump it anyway and wait for the capital police to arrest you. Dare them to, even. Because that's what protest is, damn it. And if you're feeling really strongly about it, you just back the truck up and put the truck with the tea bags in it into the reflecting pool.

The better protest was swarming the Capital during the Obamacare debate. But all you did was make the Congressmen and Congresswomen walk in groups. And, as I pointed out in a debate on one of the videos, it wasn't clear if they were headed into the Capital or headed back to their offices. Also there was the racial thing. Also, it wasn't really your core concerns (taxes and lowering the deficit).

What did the union people in Wisconsin do when they were going to close the Capital building to "clean"? "Oh well, chaps, might as well go home and get a good night's sleep." No. Fuck no. They set their lawyers to sue and they held their ground until it came to almost armed assault. That's a protest. They dared the police to arrest them.

When people marched over the bridge to Selma, when they got on the buses, when they stayed off the buses, when they marched with the unionists, when they marched on Washington, they understood that being arrested was not only part of the plan, but it wasn't the worst thing that could have happened to them. You might remember that civil rights was a shooting war in some places.

When people went on strike, they had a very real expectation that they might be shot. That isn't hyperbole. People were shot. In the mining towns in West Virginia people were mowed down with the new fangeled Gatling gun while they were in their homes (the train tracks went right through the middle of the company towns). When you went on strike you didn't march outside, you occupied the plant. It was a form of protection and it kept the owners from just firing you all and getting new workers.

If you're going to protest you need to make the people you want to change feel uncomfortable. If you're protesting against The Man, you've gotta make it tough for them. Get two or three people arrested and then everybody goes home, that's not it. I know they teach "passive resistance" courses on how to make it harder for the police to haul you away. Wrong idea. The people in charge really don't care if some officer gets a sore back from lifting you up. You want to make it easy for the police to arrest you. You want them to. You want to force that cop to process you. Because that (the processing and going through court) takes time. Takes real dollars and man power to do. You want to get a thousand people arrested. And don't let them off with only one or two at a time. "Officer, I demand you arrest me now." Make three judges get out of bed, come down to the courthouse to process you through because there just isn't any room to hold 10 people overnight, let alone a few hundred, and you'll make a dent. Keep all those officers late (more than likely on overtime already) to get double time to process forms. Trust me, someone at the State House will be getting a call. And you'll get on the news. Maybe not for your protest, but as it takes a day or two to process you all through the system. That's newsworthy.

So, Mr. "I'm gonna burn this here box of cheerios I bought from the store", you're pissing in the wind. You want to make a protest, grab a few hundred boxes from their warehouse and burn those. That'll cost GM something. That would get their attention (but probably not much). What you did, other than costing the local municipality a few hundred dollars to respond and put out the grass fire you started, was piddly shit. You just masturbated all over the GM sign there and then put the video up on YouTube to show how manly you were running away before anybody might notice you were actually there. If you did scorch some lawn there, I hope General Mills and your local municipality sends you the bill to clean it up, and puts a lean on whatever property you own to have it paid. After all, you handed them the very evidence they need to get the courts to act. Worth it? You should have chained yourself to the sign. Or maybe, since you're such a good customer, General Mills might just send you a coupon pack to buy your next box of cheerios to burn.

Oh, and here's your sign.

To sum up

NC Bigotry: "Hey privileged majority, would you like to enshrine your privilege into the constitution to make sure you never have to deal with things that might make you feel icky for no apparent reason and at the same time maybe screw up a whole host of other relationships and maybe indemnify a bunch of people who like to injure others because domestic abuse laws are poorly written? Or would you like to expand the privilege to be more inclusive and support loving relationships of all types which may strengthen the whole concept of marriage?"

NC Voters: "No, 60% of us would like to keep that privilege for ourselves, thanks."

Don't worry, North Carolina. Ignorant, bigoted, and fearful Ohioans did the same thing a few years ago.

And to those people who opposed Amendment One (and the Ohio State Issue 1), did you really expect a different answer? Look, after we went down the rabbit hole here in Ohio, people are finally waking up and thinking, you know, that wasn't such a good decision after all. So we might, might, have an amendment to repeal that amendment (and according to recent polls, given the choice, a very slim majority of people have realized that by expanding the franchise, we strengthen the institution and it really doesn't challenge anybody with a brain).

But what'll really change things is when these amendments and laws are challenged in the Supreme Court under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution. Which, you may remember, is what DOMA was all about (which is why it was and is Unconstitutional, and why President Obama directed the DoJ to stop defending it). Yeah, it sucks getting your way through the courts instead of positive affirmation from the people, but that's how most minority positions find protection against majority intransigence.

Poking the bees nest

I really didn't want to write about this subject, but I get tired of bullshit.

Okay, for all of you shouting about how George Zimmerman had the right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, what about Trayvon Martin's rights under that same law? After all, he was being trailed by someone who was armed for absolutely no good reason (both being armed and trailing him).

While there's lots of flying crap all over this one (including the police department or school leaking the story about him being dispelled for having traces of marijuana in his bookbag – which whomever did that? that was a violation of the law, hope they put you in jail for abusing the trust you're given), so it can cover everybody who jumps into this story (which was why I didn't want to comment). Before you go off shouting about how poor George was ambushed and had to fight for his life, understand that Trayvon was already operating under those rules when George was tracking him before calling 911.

Neighborhood Watches are an excellent law enforcement tool. Going on patrol, while armed, trailing "suspects" is not a part of that program. That's what vigilantes do. When George stepped out with his gun, that's where the problem started.

And before you decide to say, "You're just anti-gun" I remind everyone that I've already completed the concealed carry course here in Ohio. I'm not NRA lunatic fringe material, but I do believe in a healthy exercise of the 2nd Amendment. I just don't buy in to all the swaggering bullshit that surrounds that issue.

The Culture War

Catherine Shaffer on "What if we threw a Culture War and nobody came." I respect Catherine, and Gods I wish I could see her point as valid here. I really do wish we lived in a world where her tactics would work. It's taken me a long time to realize that we don't. So instead of polluting her blog with my poisoned soul, I'll respond more fully here.

Sorry, reading my blogroll out of order here, so I just got to your argument here. Catherine, please understand that I agree with your sentiment. In an equal society, things would work well. However, the major point I would disagree with you is that we're not living in a free and open society any more than Voltaire was. As things stand now, we're operating under "Some people are more equal than others."

Also, as you state, "Getting back to the title of this post, what if we decide we don’t want a culture war? What if we refuse to wage it? What if, when faced with paranoid, hateful, intolerant speech, we turn and walk away? " I'm a student of history. Walking away never helped anyone. MLK, Ghandi, Jesus and Buddha didn't walk away. They engaged, and they used all the tricks in their book (and while they themselves didn't embrace or advocate violence, their acolytes did).

I'll also point out that all of the above engaged in economic warfare against their opposition. MLK with strikes and boycotts, sit ins and demonstrations. Ghandi sought to cripple the all important salt trade. Jesus threw the money lenders out of the Temple. And Buddha started from a position of high privilege.

I would love not to have this culture war. I like so many others are crying on the insides, "Didn't we go through this fire two decades ago? Wasn't it too painful to revisit?" However, in my case, the opposition doesn't care. They are engaged in war. They never stopped being engaged in war. To walk away is to hand them the field and the victory. If this was only about, "you think your way, I think my way, let's go our own ways," that would be one thing. This isn't about that. They want me to think their way. It's their goal to either force me to their opinions or to legally block me from my rights.

I don't want my nieces and nephews to have to "escort" women into clinics again, to bring this very much into the current fight. I and my friends had to do that. I'm tired of constantly fighting this battle. The opposition has set the terms and conditions of this war. They aren't in it to win hearts and minds. They've chosen scorched earth tactics. It's my choice as to how I proceed. I will not relinquish the field. The opposition has stated their goals and what they're willing to give up to achieve them. I've fought this war the good way once. We won. The opposition said they didn't care, licked their wounds, and counted on "my" (the royal me in this case) being tired of the fight. And they were right. They've gained back much of the ground.

I won't put my nieces and nephews through what I had to go through. They'll have their own battles to wage. So, do I continue press forward keeping nice only to lose what we fought so hard to gain?

No. I won't do it. Fuck the enemy. They choose to fight to the death. I'm now willing to oblige them. And if the world burns as a result? The fire is preferable to the cage. The war is here if we want it or not. I wish I could see non-violence as a viable path out of this one. The opposition has removed that option from the board.

And here I'll state that stating my opinions forcefully, waging economic and political war, actually is non-violence. It's only in comparison to my side's previously held tactics that it looks violent. This isn't a call to beat daylight into the skulls of the opposition (although I often have the fear it will come to that). But I'm no longer willing to "live and let live" because my opposition isn't willing to embrace that. In my view of the world, the opposition is perfectly fine to hold their beliefs and continue on their merry way. They haven't afforded me the same curtesy. They don't have the right. It's time someone reminded them.

There goes Tokyo, go, go Rush Limbaugh

This whole issue of censoring Rush Limbaugh has gone way overboard. (Grokked from Jay Lake) First off, Limbaugh's speech is actually "commercial speech" (or it used to be before the Supreme Court decided that corporations were people endowed with every right as regular citizens, excepting the right to go to jail for violating the law, but I digress). This would be different if Rush was standing on a soap box at the local park spouting his poison at passersby. Instead, Rush is the head of a corporation, he is paid for his speech, and his speech sells products. That pretty much takes it out of regular "freedom of speech" categories and places it into "commercial speech." Fortunately for Rush, President Reagan helped push through a repeal of "truth in news" laws back in the 80s. If those were still in place, Rush wouldn't have a show (and neither would Fox News, but I digress again).

And even free speech has had it's limits. While everyone (okay, most people) know the infamous, "Can't yell fire in a crowded theater" argument, fewer people know that it's not just about panic but about incitement to riot, encouraging violation of laws (ask any civil rights leader about that one), and a few other categories. And we have plenty of things that we censor. Do you have a copy of the Anarchists Cookbook? Should you be allowed to send death threats or white powder through the mail? What about your right to tell a joke in line (just try to joke about a bomb in a TSA or Customs line - it's a felony)?

I don't think that the FCC should pull Clear Channel's license on the "public interest" argument (and this is frankly the first I've heard of that). However, I do believe it is our right to contact all those sponsors of Rush's show and let them know that because of their support, we won't buy their products or shop at their stores. That isn't censorship, that's the free market, baby. So I strongly disagree with the authors contention that this is morally wrong. Rush isn't being stopped from saying what he wants to say, we're just looking to remove his megaphone. There's a difference. Also, if you're a corporate sponsor, you are supporting that show. If we say, "I don't like these opinions and that reflects badly on you for supporting them," I don't see anything wrong about that. Suck it up, Buttercup.

I also disagree that it's wrong to stand up and refute someone's argument on stage. See, there's all those other people in the room and as we've seen at various conservative political events, those people also have the right to shout down the hecklers. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good (people) to do nothing. And by not responding, if you sit there meekly on your hands, you're giving tacit approval to what is being said.

The radical right has coasted for too long on the left's willingness to be courteous and tolerant, while they have not reciprocated. How many people remember actual discourse before it was a shouting match? I do. The right no longer accepts that, and they shouldn't be given the courtesy. Eventually that "do unto others" gets turned into "as they have done unto you." So it's time to talk over them, as they do to us. It's time to not let them get away with three attacks and we only get to respond to one. It's time for our own GOPAC memo.

"Free speech means tolerating views that you despise." Bullshit. Free speech is I get to call you on being an idiot when you're being an idiot. Like I said, I'm against using the government arm to push Rush out of the public sphere. That is censorship that we shouldn't do. However, I'm not above using other means to remove the man's microphone. And that includes shouting him down, hitting him in his income stream, and exposing his lies. Free speech means knowing that people don't agree with you and have different opinions. I need to protect their ability to express those opinions. But nothing says I have to tolerate them. That is a false argument. In this case, we don't have free speech. Rush's radio show, his microphone, distorts the acceptance and prevalence of his views. The opposition voices start with a disadvantage. Rush's "free speech" drowns out other voices (just listen to how he handles callers who disagree with his opinions). Don't think that's true, just ask any stand-up comedian about hecklers. The person on the stage has the microphone, if you make it a "fair fight" the person with the microphone will always win out.

Conservatives in this argument like to throw out Bill Maher as an example. As someone said, "like a b-rated comedian on a c-rated show is a comparison for Rush Limbaugh's presence in the market place." Jon Stewart would be a closer comparison. But, hey, conservatives, pony up to the bar. You've actually have had Bill Maher thrown off the airwaves before. He keeps coming back, just as I expect Rush will too.

Jim Hines has a good primer on this (although he's specifically talking about his own blog - also this should not be taken as an endorsement by Jim Hines of the position I'm outlining here).

And finally, you want to see what censorship actually looks like? Here it is. (also grokked from Jay Lake) This isn't the first time Doonesbury comics have been taken off the comics pages. So, hear the conservatives shouting about this censorship? Nope, what you hear is them saying, "Ah, it was all well and good 'cause we wouldn't want to trouble anyone on the comics pages with reality and satire."

Newt Gingrich Is Full of Crap

Okay, one of the things Newt is promising he'll do is bring gas down to $2.50 and make us less dependent on "foreign oil" (and here we'll continue to include Canadian imports, because we really can't quit the Canadians without making us more dependent on places like Venezuela, African West Coast countries, and the dreaded Middle-East). About every price fluctuation of $10 a barrel translates to $0.25 in gas prices. Light sweet oil is about $106 a barrel right now. Current average gas price is $3.80. Okay, so to get to $2.50 a gallon oil prices per barrel would need to be reduced by approximately $52. Sounds doable, right?

Wrong. That gives us a per barrel price of $54. To keep oil flowing from the Canadian Oil Sands the price per barrel needs to be above $70. Let's say they're making 15% profit at $70, that gives us a break even point of $59.50 a barrel to mine that oil (if they'll continue to pump the stuff for costs, anybody believe they'll do that?). Canada accounts for over 20% of all our imported oil (they are by far and away the largest single contributor to our imported oil).

All that "domestic oil" that people are salivating over? That's shale oil which costs even more to produce (notice not much is being made from shale oil). Deep sea oil drilling? Not really economical for below $60 a barrel (for what we're exploring now, all the cheeper oil is being produced). PRetty much all the new oil we're looking for in the US has a bottom base price of around $60 (median, some areas are as low as $30, some as high as $80 with most being on the upper end).

So, let's say Gringrich is actually able to wave his fairy wand and make gas $2.50 a gallon (let us not discuss the over control of the market that would be necessary here, and how antithetical that control is to conservatives). Domestic oil exploration ceases. Canadian oil imports dry up (which might be good for Canada who still imports much of their oil, oddly enough). And we'll be at the mercy of countries that actually do hate us.

So, still think Gingrich has great ideas? He's farting in the pews and everybody is thinking that someone delivered roses.

Unless we have a severe program for conservation, somehow make cars that get over 80mpg, or everybody stops driving and our economy crashes to the ground, we aren't going to see $2.50 gas anytime soon. If ever again.

And before anybody says, "but if we produce more domestically…", look, oil is sold on a world market. Doesn't matter where it's produced. The only difference is that we'll stop making other countries rich from our oil habit. At best we can hope for is $2.80 a gallon. And unless we stop speculators (which is the real reason oil prices are above $80 a barrel), we won't see that either. And does anybody believe that with the current political environment that we'll be able to reign in commodity speculators?

Dear Rush Limbaugh,

Let me say first off that you can ignore me. I'm not a normal listener to your show. Mostly because I like to keep my intelligence intact and just a random sampling of your show and your viewers proves that would be impossible to do if I listened. But I do hear about your controversies, which seem to happen on a regular basis of about one every year and a half. You have a propensity for sticking your foot in your mouth, which is, I guess, better than the alternatives places you could be sticking either.

So take that into mind as I call you a despicable excuse for a bag of protoplasm to retain fetid water. You're not a poor excuse for a human being, you're a poor excuse for excrement. To call you a disgrace to thinking animals above the level of chameleons… whom I would rather spend time with instead of you, I'm sure our conversations would be more productive. The chameleon and me. I felt I needed to clarify that for you. Anyway, it would be an insult to the intelligence of chameleons everywhere to say that.

You called Sandra Fluke not only a slut, but a prostitute and someone who is only in school to have sex. And then you tried to apologize several times. But those weren't really apologies, and you're insulting our intelligence by trying to get us to think so.

And then you go on to say how you're the victim. You're only the victim of your own depraved mind. You're a sick, sexually obsessed, dirty old man. Saying you're sorry you used the words "slut" and "prostitute" but not the sentiment behind your slanderous statements. You stated that this student was having too much sex to pay for her own birth control. That she was doing it for money and wanted us to pay for it. And then you said that "we the people" should get the benefit of it by having her post web videos of her having sex.

Let me just say this for every woman I know, including my nieces who are still in college, you're whole commentary was an exposure of your depraved attitude towards women and your sense of entitlement. And I'm forced to ask, do you often watch sex videos on the internet? I'm just wondering because of how fast you got to that statement. Like you were building to something and needed the visual to finish. That any woman would want to be near you is an example of how messed up our society is. Frankly, I'm almost moved to get a restraining order against you on behalf of all women.

To say your mind is filled with more unwashed socks than the Grinch is to slander Dr. Suess, so I won't. But I will say your soul is full of gunk. Frankly I'm not sure that you don't leave a slime trail behind you like the bloated slug you resemble. That anyone would listen to your show and find it entertaining is an indictment on the modern education process.

So let me ask this. You're an "entertainer" and it's pretty obvious the only reason your "apologizing" is that 10 sponsors have pulled the plug. So you do it for the money. And I think you try to make the people who listen to you happy. So what does that make you? I'll leave you to your own logic.

You make me long for the olden days. Your olden days of puritainical rule and sensibilities. I would make the trip to Florida to throw rotten food at you in the pillories.

Pond scum feels sullied by the comparison to you. You're not an entertainer, your the neighborhood homeless guy on the corner shouting obscenities at the people in their cars. That you somehow duped people into giving you a radio show so you could spread your disease to more people is beyond my comprehension. I'm sure it involved drugs. The kind you used to take.

With all due respect, fuck off and die.

Yours,
Me

PS. I'll preemptively apologize. Some of my word choices weren't the most appropriate, and in my attempt to convey my point, I may have offended you. I sincerely apologies from the bottom of your black heart.

See how that doesn't work.

That I wasted my evening writing this scrib instead of study for my test on Wednesday can give you a measure of how much I'm pissed at this whole thing.

EDITED 03-06-11 I think what really gets to me is the pernicious mentality of social conservatives who ascribe to the old definition, "Conservatism: The fear that someone, somewhere, is having a good time."

And the mind set is very well portrayed in this youtube clip

You're getting your religious freedom in my personal freedom

Well it seems even after an accomodation with the insurance companies, the loony-right has found what they believe will be their issue for the election (or at least for this month). Religious freedom in the form of being in full-on dick mode to women and teh gays not accepting that if a religious organization owns a business outside that of tending to the flocks (as it were), that if they buy insurance (instead of being self-insured), they must cover contraceptives, and that they get a pass when it comes to bullying laws.

Can I just say this is unmitigated bullshit of the highest order and end the argument there? No, I guess not.

First off, and lets be clear about this, this issue has already been litigated to the highest court and the Churches have lost. See, many states already require insurance to cover contraceptives (and here we're talking about that scourge of modern society, the pill, not something like free condoms if you show your insurance card). And the Churches (well, some of the more loony-right winged churches) cried foul and said, "We'll sue!" And they all lost. Every single one of them.

Why? Because the law doesn't mandate that they use birth control, they're not being singled out for special provisions, and not everyone who works for those organizations is actually a member of the said religion. Also (and we'll get back to this), they accept government money (your tax dollars) to run their charities (thank you G. W. Bush), fix and repair their buildings (again, since GW), and Medicare, Medicaid, and both direct payments to hospitals and partial block grants (state distributed federal money). And, again, for the church offices, employees, etc, you have an exemption. It's only when you run an outside business that you need to comply with the law.

So first, a little thing about the compromise. President Obama basically went to the insurance companies and said, "Hey, what I want you to do is cover the birth control prescriptions for free, and not include that in whatever you bill these church affiliated (and sometimes not much more affiliated than with a name or address) business." And the insurance companies went, "Wait, you want us to cover the pill, the thing that lowers out costs (and price), that essentially costs us less than $10 a month, AND we get to bill them like we weren't including that (which is a higher amount)? Fuck yeah!" See, health insurance companies cover the pill, vasectomies, tubal ligation, hysterectomies, etc, because they are much cheaper than even a non-complicated pregnancy (also, see notes about how we're waiting much longer to have babies, which adds to the complexity of the pregnancy, which adds to the costs). So they see it as both reducing their costs for those pregnancies and then the added costs of the pediatrics (which are normally discounted to the end user). When you specifically request to not have those services covered, your potential use and cost goes up, and then so does your premiums (insurance is all about covering the spread).

But now that compromise isn't enough. It's a classic case of moving the goal posts. Also, I'll note here, that while the Catholic Church is against all forms of birth control (except the rhythm method or abstinence), 85% of Catholic women have used the pill (I couldn't find a stat on condom use). Now it's "we don't want anybody using the pill, and because it's our 'religious freedom' we want to make sure the rest of you don't have the choice either." Or, "You can have your religious freedom all you want, as long as it conforms to the most conservative Catholic or Evangelical faiths, and you must belong to one of them."

That's right, what the Churches want is the freedom to enforce their religious precepts on everybody else. Protestant? Agnostic/Atheist? Buddhist, Hindi, Vodun, whatever… domani, domani, domani, you're all Catholics now. That's what this is about.

See, if it was about "religious freedom" those very same people would say, "We don't want your government money." What's that? You don't hear them talking about how they'll leave all that juicy, juicy tax money behind so that they can remain pure to their faith?

And here I will point out the the very same people who cry that religions can separate their mission money from their church funds and that the two aren't related are also the ones who talk about how even with Planned Parenthood having separate bank accounts and business structures (and in some countries, having completely separate corporate identities sharing facilities) that you can't really separate out those funds because any money that goes to the good will and health services also free up funds/help pay the rent of the abortion side of businesses.

So, that's fine. You want to keep your "religious freedom" to enforce your will on people who aren't of your faith? Stop taking government money.

Also notice they're not decrying coverage for those other medical procedures (vasectomy, etc), or coverage for viagra, or really any of the other things that also violate their "religious freedoms" (well, they don't see it that way, because they benefit men), just abortion and the pill. Because they want a government that gets out of your personal business, doesn't get between you and your doctor (and God), and is a government that's smaller. Just small enough to fit inside women's uteruses (see also Personhood Bills)

So, that this is about "religious freedom" is a bunch of bull. This is about keeping power over women by regulating their reproduction. This is about not wanting to live in modern society because it's all icky and people have to share. It's about convincing you that some people are more equal than others.