text:
The Burden of Saying Goodbye to a Dog

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." -1 Corinthians 15:26 We first met Lacey in a pet store in Raleigh, North Carolina. My wife and I had been married about eight months and had decided to take the next step in married-adult responsibility: getting a pet. We quarreled over how big our dog should be. I wanted a larger dog, like a Labrador. She wanted a lap dog, like a poodle. Lacey was a Shetland Sheep dog. She was eight weeks old, black and white with tan on her legs, and she was … [Read more...]

I Don’t Want to Lose My Landline

I grew up before the invention of the cell phone. Indeed, I still vividly remember the day my father brought home a "cordless" phone. It was like magic! A walkie-talkie with no boundaries! We walked around the house with it talking to friends going, "Can you hear me now? There's no cord, I swear! Can you still hear me?! I'm at least twenty feet from the wall!" This really did happen, and it wasn't that long ago. But now, because of cell phones and competition and telemarketers, it seems … [Read more...]

Actually, People Say Really Nice Things About Miss America on Twitter!

I don't watch the Miss America pageant. There are two good reasons for this. First, I don't watch much television, and second, I think it's the weirdest thing. I know folks complain that the pageant tends to objectify women more than empower them, but I could easily be convinced that this isn't the case. Instead, the pageant reminds me of my old high school prom. All of these beautiful women are there in their beautiful gowns, but no one has a date. (I've always thought it'd be awesome to show … [Read more...]

“Most Dudes Are Weird and I Pity Them”: Dating Advice for Actual Christian Guys

I noticed today that Paul Maxwell over at The Gospel Coalition broached the subject of dating, asking the question, "What Does 'Intentional' Mean in Dating?" I must confess that I am at a loss as to why such a question is necessary because 'unintentional' dating is not something I am familiar with. I have never in my life encountered a couple who, after having dinner together, found out that they had accidentally and unintentionally been on a date with one another. But perhaps I am sadly behind … [Read more...]

ELSEWHERE: The Theology of Beard Length

So, you thought the East-West church divide was over whether or not the bread used in Mass should be leavened? Or perhaps because of the filioque clause? Oh no, those were only part of it. They also split, dear readers, over the length of the priestly beard. I am giving to you, as was given to me, this gift of the theological history of the beard. You should read it. And if you are a man, know that a line has been drawn. Are you on the manly beard side, or the peach fuzz girly face side? The … [Read more...]

When Is Football Too Dangerous?

Brain damage. It is beyond dispute that playing in the NFL is causing brain injury to many of the men who play it. Owen Strachan asks how we should think about football in light of these new findings about long-term injury in football. You should check it out. … [Read more...]

ELSEWHERE: Against Pornography… in Scandinavia?

I endorse this message to the hotel industry 100%. And to anyone else, for that matter. Hopefully, this is a step in the right direction to stop the de-humanizing effects of pornography. … [Read more...]

Nicolas Cage Misses the Rapture because He Doesn’t Get Left Behind

Screen Shot 2013-08-29 at 7.55.25 AM

Not too far in the distant past, I saw a little internet buzz that Nicolas Cage was cast to play the lead in a cinematic reboot of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' "Left Behind" book series. If you are unfamiliar with that series, they are action adventure books that follow the outline of a dispensationalist, pre-millienial, pre-tribulation rapture understanding of Revelation. (If you just said "Whaaaat?" check out this wikipedia page under "eschatology"). But I dismissed the buzz rather quickly as … [Read more...]

How Spotify and other Streaming Services Create Legal Artist Sweatshops

Online streaming and downloading services have changed my life. Unfortunately, they've also saddled me with a great deal of guilt. The foremost example of my emotionally distressed relationship with Internet technology is Spotify. Before discovering Spotify several years ago, I was stuck in what you might call a "musical quagmire." I didn't like what I heard on the radio, and because I went through a years-long phase of listening to only "Christian" music following my conversion, I lost track of … [Read more...]

Arguing Against Homosexuality Based On Its “Yuck Factor” is Gross

Image- Marta Crowe via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

I love Thabiti Anyabwile. But I think he's really, really wrong in his article "The Importance of Your Gag Reflex When Discussing Homosexuality and 'Gay Marriage'." You should go and read Anyabwile's arguments, but if you have a bad case of the lazy, I'll sum it up: his claim is that an effective way to combat the current toleration of homosexual sex is to describe it, and that will work because people naturally think that it's gross. Anyabwile recalls an incident where gay marriage was … [Read more...]


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
A Muslim Hero in the Nairobi Mall Massacre

Nairobi National Park, on the outskirts of the city

I’ve only visited Nairobi once, and that was many, many years ago.  I loved Kenya, though, and really liked Nairobi.  I’ve always wanted to go back.

So hearing about the massacre in the Westgate Mall there was personally shocking to me.  And, as the horrible details are coming out — this brief item, I caution you, is pretty grossly graphic — what happened proves to be even more offensive and disgusting, if that’s possible, than previously imagined.

Consequently, it’s good to hear and read about people like Abdul Haji:

Print Friendly

  • Lucy Mcgee

    Ever read “West with the Night”, by Beryl Markham which chronicles her life in Kenya at the turn of the last century? This is one amazing true life adventure story.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-180-212-248.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-23
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for July 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
The supertrailer for the new season of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills just came out, and it hints at some interesting storylines this season. It also features two new cast members, Joyce Giraud and Carlton Gebbia. It’s not clear whether both are full-on Housewives or “Friends of the Housewives” but each gets a pretty decent amount of screen time.

Although Carlton’s smooch with castmate Brandi Glanville is definitely going to be on the show, it’s not clear whether Carlton’s religious beliefs will be mentioned, even though they’re way more interesting. Carlton is a practicing Wiccan who says that she gets a lot of flak about her beliefs. She talks about her practice a lot on Twitter.

Also, her kids’ names are Destiny, Cross, and Mysteri. Do you think Carlton gets invited to Kyle’s daughter’s bat mitzvah? Based on Carlton’s Twitter, it seems that she’s very close to Yolanda Foster and Lisa Vanderpump.


text:
Review: Priest (dir. Antonia Bird, 1994)

THE MAKERS of Priest claim that their film is meant to be a catalyst for change within the Catholic church, but their confrontational approach does more harm than good to their cause.

Worse, they have mounted the assault on too many fronts at once. In the space of 100 minutes, Priest tries to address issues as diverse as homosexuality, celibacy, the secrecy of the confessional, child abuse, liberation theology, the problem of evil … even a pinch of animal rights. It’s a wonder the ordination of women never comes up.

[Read more...]


text:
Scott Walker is Not My Husband: My Reality TV Debut (Unless You Count Romper Room)

Those who read this blog know that I love reality television.  Ever since Jeff Probst said, “take your buffs,” back on the first season of Survivor, I was hooked on reality TV.  I wanted to know who’d get voted off the island, which of the biggest losers would win the weigh-in, whom celebrity Donald Trump would fire, and – of course – which bachelorette would take the limo ride of shame. (I even watched Martha Stewart’s Apprentice, pre-ankle bracelet.)

When a producer at Lifetime contacted me about being on Bristol Palin’s “Life a Tripp,” I was elated.  As many of you know, I helped Bristol write her New York Times Best Selling memoir “Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far.” Frequently, celebrity collaborators are truly “ghost writers” – not seen or acknowledged. Bristol, however, has invited me to sign books and even insisted I pose in photos with fans.  (In these cases, I imagine the book buyer posting their photo on Facebook, tagging Bristol Palin and then wondering, “who’s this person and why is she ruining my photo with Bristol?”) Of course, it’s always a little intimidating to sign books with a celebrity, but Bristol’s book signings are a great deal more exciting than mine.  When I sign my own books, I end up giving directions to the restroom a few dozen times, taking a nap, and buying more books than I’ve sold.

At any rate, Bristol invited me to go to Washington, DC for a book signing, which happened to coincide with CPAC.  Since my husband and I were already planning on attending the conference, I agreed: I was going to make my reality TV debut!

Well, unless you count Romper Room in 1979.  And yes, I rocked out those bell bottoms.

I had two segments.  The first was to be filmed in the hotel room of Bristol and Willow.  There was one complication.  My segment on Life’s a Tripp coincided with CPAC’s Ronald Reagan Dinner.  Normally, I’m not terribly interested in dinner ceremonies with long political speeches, but I was told – in strict confidence — that David was going to win CPAC’s prestigious Ronald Reagan Award.  He had no idea, so I was in the unenviable position of trying to do both Bristol’s show and the Ronald Reagan Award Ceremony – both conveniently scheduled at the same time at opposite ends of the hotel.  Plus, I had all of my kids with me.

“Camille,” I whispered to my thirteen year old after dragging her out of earshot of my husband.  “Can you keep a secret?”

I explained David had won this very nice award, and asked her to dress my 4 year old, keep her happy at the banquet until I got there, and make sure her dad stayed seated until I arrived.   My plan was to film a bit on Lifetime during some of the preliminary political speeches, and then head over to the banquet at –hopefully – the right time.  My worst fear was that David would go to the bathroom and miss his own award.  Thankfully, my thirteen year old is very responsible and became my co-conspirator in the charade, along with my friends Ruth and Orit who helped negotiate the details of the evening for me.

Mysteriously, the Palin hotel room was bigger than the one we were staying in!

That night, everything went smoothly.  I filmed about an hour with the Palins in their room, which was very colorful — I thought it was perfect for a television shoot. We caught up on several topics, but what made the cut was me explaining how enormous CPAC was this year.

Then, after it was over, I got my mic taken off, said my goodbyes, and scooted over to CPAC.  I still had to shoot one more scene at the book signing the following day, but my main focus now was on getting to the Reagan Award Dinner. Of course, I soon realized I’d forgotten my credentials when a guard at the door wouldn’t let me in.  I could see my family sitting in the front, all around a round table right in front of the podium.  Naomi, I was amazed to see, was still behaving. My older daughter Camille had dressed her well and kept her occupied.  My eleven year old son wasn’t wearing belt and had his shirt untucked, but David looked completely normal. I could tell he had no idea that he was about to have to deliver a speech on CSPAN.

“Please let me in,” I begged the security.  “My husband is the man of honor,” I whispered.

“Scott Walker’s your husband?” he asked.  The Governor of Wisconsin was scheduled to give the end-of-the-night speech.

My friend had to vouch for me, and the guard finally relented.  I slipped into my seat at just the right time, when this happened:

That’s how I ended up being on Lifetime and CSPAN on the same night.

Which was just as well, because I only have one good outfit now that I’ve outgrown my bell bottoms.

When I was invited to be on Bristol’s show, I was thrilled to be a part of that excitement. But as I stood on that stage, I appreciated Austin’s untucked shirt, Naomi’s incessant grinning for the jumbo screen, Camille’s age-defying ability to keep a secret, and David’s amazing impromptu speech.

Sometimes, reality really is much more amazing than reality tv.  But that night, I was so happy to have all of my worlds blend into one memorable evening!

And I didn’t even have to fast forward through commercials.

See other photos from the episode here!

You might enjoy these reality-tv inspired posts:

Religion on The Bachelorette: It’s There, But Just Below the Surface

Mormons Create “The Mormon Bachelor”

Jef Holm: I’m Not a Practicing Mormon

The Bachelorette: I Won’t Shack Up Before Marriage

Connect with Me Further by:

Friending me on Facebook

Following me on Twitter

Buying my Books!

This article first appeared here.

About Nancy French

Nancy French is a three time New York Times Best Selling Author.


text:
When I Grow Up

I saw this E.E. Cummings quote twice today. I took it as an answer to last night's prayers

“Nafisa, do you like history?” Zach asked a fourteen year old friend who was here tonight.

“I do like history.”

“Then you are going to LOVE the volcano video.”

“Zach, honey,” I jump in, “that video isn’t about history.”

“But it has a lot of historical stuff in it.”

“Well, history, as a subject in school, is really about the history of people.  The history of the Earth is generally considered science.”

“Oh.  Do you like science, Nafisa?”

Ha!  I love it.  He doesn’t know if it’s history or science, but he knows it’s cool.

Today was just cool all around.  Here was our schedule:

  1. Running on the track, playing soccer, and climbing on a playground structure (1 hour)
  2. Memorizing a poem about mistakes and talking about what the poem meant (30 minutes total, done in the car before and after the track)
  3. Hanging out with Dr. Jim, who is helping Zach learn to deal with his anxiety and improve his social skills, while Ezra and I hung out with Wendy at Starbucks (1 hour)
  4. Lunch and basketball with Kathiana, who speaks exclusively Spanish to the boys (2 hours)
  5. Ezra working with the occupational therapist from the public school while Zach played on the playground with his friends (1 hour)
  6. Playdate (1 hour)
  7. Dinner and National Geographic video on volcanoes. (2 hours)

At the end of the video, Zach got up, arched his back, clapped his hands, and announced, “That was A-MAZING.”

Which I took to be a pronouncement on the whole day.

Yesterday was a different kind of day, with reading and grammar and tallying and handwriting.  We also played two Native American games we got from the Children’s Museum, finished book three of the Narnia series and did a lot of indoor soccer and wrestling.  Some days look more like “school” than others, and it’s going to be a lot better for me if I can stop trying to decide which days are “good” and which are “bad.”

Wendy reminded me as we walked around the track this morning of who I’ve said I hope the boys will be, and what I value about childhood and education and family.  And just like that, all of the angsty self-doubt of last night disappeared.

The boys may not learn Latin, but they are excited about connecting with people in Spanish.  And they may not learn about the world in a “disciplined” way, but they are in awe of it. And they may not fit anybody’s mold of what normal looks like, but they are growing up, becoming who they are called to be.

I just need to stay away from meetings — and sandboxes –where I get confused about why we are homeschooling and why we are doing it the way we are.   If you hear me freaking out again, remind me of who I want to be when I grow up. And then remind me that it takes courage to get there.

  • Wendy

    A man, who we did not know but who was also walking on the track, overheard Tara talking to the boys. He stopped us to complement Tara on her great parenting skills and the wonderful way she uses pro-social coaching strategies to guide her boys interactions. When strangers notice your exemplary parenting skills and their educational efficacy, you must be doing something (or, in Tara's case, a lot of things) right. Go Tara!

  • Marilyn

    Just saying — I did a word study this very same day on "Courage". Most of them came with a promise — "For the Lord your God is the One who goes with you, He will not fail or forsake you," "The Lord your God has sworn to give them this land and you shall give them this land as an inheritance", "for you shall bring the sons of Israel into the land which I swore to them and I will be with you", "so that you may have success wherever you go", "for the Lord your God He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath", "for the Lord has chosen you to build a house for the sanctuary", "for there is reward for your work", "for the one with us is greater than the one with him", "He will save you", "for I am with you, declares the Lord of hosts", ….

    Take courage!


text:
Pentecost Power: The Spirit Moving Through Moral Mondays

Christian’s around the world are celebrating Pentecost today, the birthday of the Church when the Spirit fell like fire on Jesus’ followers in Jerusalem, helping them to both speak and understand new things. Daily, Acts tells us, new people were being added to their number. When the leaders of that early Christian movement were locked [Read More...]

Remembering Maya Angelou, Warrior for Justice

By Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II Today I am in Goldsboro, NC, witnessing the graduation of my son and preparing to eulogize a nine-year-old daughter of our community. Dr Maya Angelou’s life and poetry often represented this kind of duality that we all exist in—the place between joy and sorrow, peace and pain, tears [Read More...]


text:
“We Are the Government” and Other Thoughts

This post is an installment in Forward Thinking: A Values Development Project. Forward Thinking is an invitation to both readers and fellow bloggers to participate in forming positive values and grappling with thorny questions. Click here to for the introduction, or here for the current prompt.

What does civic responsibility mean to you?

“Why do you view the government like this, like it’s something out there, something separate, an enemy?” The speaker was Norwegian, the location a conference workshop. “In Norway, we see it differently. We are the government.” As her words settled over me I knew I would be remembering what she had said for a long, long time. See, I grew up with the oppositional view she was talking about. I saw government as the problem, and firmly believed that the only positive thing to do with government was to shrink it. I saw taxes as akin to theft. What changed between then and now was an attitude shift, and the speaker that day gave voice and words to that shift.

In the debate over the fiscal cliff last year, a friend made a fascinating observation on facebook. “I use my tax money to hire the government to do certain things,” he said. “I don’t want it to refund my money, I want it to use my money to do what I’m hiring it to do!” You know, things like roads. National parks. Fire departments. Schools. Welfare for the down and out, and social security for the elderly. His status update also got me thinking, because as a child, teen, and young adult I never thought about everything we for all intents and purposes “hire” the government to do, and also because his status update built on the “we are the government” message of the Norwegian professor.

For me, civic responsibility is about an attitude. It’s about things like paying taxes and voting, sure, but it’s also about how you do those things. Do you pay taxes grudgingly and while talking about tyranny, or do you do so with the knowledge that you are contributing to the common welfare? Do you vote just because you’re supposed to and leave most of the local races blank, or do you research the candidates from president to county coroner and make informed choices?

I think too often in this country we talk about our rights while ignoring the fact that in addition to rights we also have responsibilities.

“Every right implies a responsibility; every opportunity, an obligation; every possession, a duty.” ~ John D. Rockefeller Jr.

We talk all the time about freedom, but the reality is that living in a first world country like the United States isn’t free. We have rights, but also responsibilities, and if we forget that we have responsibilities we risk jeopardizing our rights.

Civic responsibility also involves looking beyond yourself to the society you live in. It involves remembering that we aren’t going it alone, that we can’t go it alone, that this web we call society is interwoven and interdependent. It means realizing that we are part of something larger, whether we like it or not, and it means being willing to embrace that rather than resenting it.

All of this is very abstract, yes, so I’ll take a moment to make it more concrete. In my own life, I hope to become more involved in local government and with civic institutions like the public school.

If you’re like me, you spent a lot more time thinking about the presidential race this last November than you did thinking about the candidates running for state representative in your district, but the reality is that your vote – and your volunteering – have a great deal more effect on that smaller race than on the presidential race. And, believe it or not, who you vote for at the local and state level does actually affect people’s lives. Think, for example, of the rash of anti-abortion legislation passed by state legislatures last year. These votes matter, and yet we often hardly think about them. In my own life, I want to change that.

I also plan to be very involved with my local public schools once my children reach school age. I intend to volunteer and help out, to meet and get to know the teachers and other parents. I might even consider something like running for school board. I hope to find ways to be involved with other civic institutions as well, and to volunteer for various causes. Sure, I only have a limited amount of time, but I don’t have to do everything at once. I have my whole life ahead of me.

Like it or not, we exist within a wider society. Civic responsibility, for me, means realizing that we are not alone in this world, and that we are not so independent as we might like to think. It means looking up from our own lives and embracing all of the connections we have to everyone else. It means remembering that rights come with responsibilities. It means remembering just how much we have living in the country we do, and being willing to give back with our time and money. On some level, it means expanding our family circle to embrace our local community, our state, and our nation. And that, my friend, is revolutionary.

If you would like to write your own response to this prompt and be included in this Monday’s roundup of responses, either leave a comment with your response on the post containing the prompt or write your own blog post in response to the prompt and email a link to lovejoyfeminism (at) gmail (dot) com.

About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • http://rant5k.blogspot.co.uk/ Grikmeer

    Also Troll management is something that the government has to do in Norway (I loved that film…)

  • Anonymouse

    I see a real disconnect from the conservatives around me regarding civic responsibility. They want it all, they want it now, and the don’t want to have to pay for it. For example; trash pickup is done by the county, paid for by taxes. However, years of caps on taxes have meant that several things the county used to fund are now out of reach, including twice-weekly trash pickup. When the county went to once-weekly pickup, the outraged screams reverberated for weeks. Why, their rights as American citizens were being taken away because the filth they surround themselves in was only being removed once a week (by the way, there’s nothing stopping these folks from bringing their own trash to the county landfill).

    We’re in the same position regarding snow removal equipment; after years and years of use, the snow equipment is starting to break down and there’s no longer any money to repair or replace, so snow removal has to be done with fewer machines. The outrage expressed when it takes an extra hour to reach the casino!

    • Paula G V aka Yukimi

      Only once a week??! It’s very different here in Spain but I think it’s partially because we live more concentrated (more flats, less spread apart in one family homes) and we have big common trash cans near (there’s one for each type of material (plastic, paper, …) and for normal garbage) which are picked up quite frequently instead of individual ones (at least that’s what I’ve seen in the Tv series :P ). We don’t get to the level of Japan were they really police their own neighbours so they don’t put trash that doesn’t belong (they have different days for different trashes).

      • Anat

        In my corner of US suburbia trash gets collected once a week, but we don’t produce much of it – we recycle and compost. So for a discount we have our trash taken once a month. (Recycling gets taken every other week, for free.)

  • Angela

    One thing to keep in mind when comparing the US to Norway (or a number of other countries) is that compared to our melting pot culture theirs is relatively homogenous. A US historian once pointed out to me that there is a direct correlation between cultural uniformity and citizen satisfaction with government. That makes sense when you think about. The more similar the population the easier it is to resolve issues without so much public outrage and political deadlocking.

    • http://eschaton2012.ca Eamon Knight

      I don’t think Canada is that much less diverse that the US, and there isn’t the same level of government-hatred here. I suspect there’s also historical myth-making at work, in this case the American myth of the frontier and the individual.

    • smrnda

      This might be true for Norway, but even Norway has had a lot of immigration, along with most other Western European nations. Most Europeans I know are quick to correct Americans who assume that the UK, France, Ireland, Germany etc. are still ethnically homogenous societies – they aren’t any more.

      • luckyducky

        This is true but as Europe has been experiencing far more emigration than immigration and maintained relative racial/cultural/ethnic homogeneity up until relatively recently, many if not most have just begun to deal with “us” being as diverse as it is. As fraught as the “melting pot” aspect of American culture is, we’ve at least been wrestling with this question quite openly for a couple hundred years.

        But as far as the Canadians go, well, they are just more polite* and seem to indicate that the “mosaic” approach to cultural diversity is more productive than the “melting pot” as the first attempts to accept and even celebrate diversity and the the second attempts to merge at best and assimilate at worst.

        *I love Sarah Vowel’s discussion of the differences between Americans/US and Canadians/Canada in the “Partly Cloudy Patriot” (she’s a Canadiophile).

    • Anat

      Counting by proportion of population that are first or second generation immigrants Australia surpasses the US, as does Israel, possibly many other countries too.

    • Angela

      Sorry I shortened my original comment and didn’t realize I’d cut out the sentence specifying that I’m mainly referring to national identity- not racial, ethnic, religious or other markers of diversity. National identity is determined by one’s sense of what it means to be a citizen in one’s country. According to the historian I spoke with Scandinavian countries have the most uniform ideas surrounding national identity in the world. The US is remarkably nonuniform for a developed nation with a stable government. He claimed that Canada is less uniform than most of western Europe but much more so than the US. I will ask him if he can link me to any studies or articles that back this up.

  • wanderer

    This reminds me of a discussion I had with my very conservative family recently. They were bemoaning how “government” was trying to take away their freedom by passing legislation about nutritious school lunches. I was baffled. I could not see how WE THE PEOPLE passing a law saying we’re setting a higher standard for OURSELVES to feed our kids good food would be a bad thing.
    It’s not like a Obama is coming to their school to force-feed their kids. They can even still pack them a junk-food lunch if they want to.
    For them, it was the “principle” that government shouldn’t be involved in “our food choices”. For me, it was completely the opposite. The government isn’t doing this….I WANT to make sure that kids get decent nutrition. I WANT peace of mind that public school isn’t feeding them empty calories. I WANT to make sure nobody in the name of budget reduction gets to put kids’ health at risk. How is this some Washington entity taking away my freedom???

    • Anat

      The government isn’t infringing on the parents’ freedoms with such legislation. The government is forcing standards on the schools, which are a government agency.

    • luckyducky

      I was speaking to a high school social studies teacher who was ranting and raving about this (?!?). I was flabbergasted that he was complaining — without irony — that these were some of the only meals some of his kids would get and now they are going hungry. He was apparently unaware that many of the meals before the change actually had lower calorie counts than their healthier replacements and kids are supposed to be able to get additional servings of fruits and veggies regardless of the impact on calorie counts.

      I had a friend who was on SNAP all the way through high school and her mom was not reliable about using them so the only dependable meals she got were breakfast and lunch at school. While the rest of our group when through a t00-cool-for-school-lunch phase, she went to the cafeteria every day and ate a decent meal — I only recently recognized what it meant and how much better it would have been if the lunches had had a better nutritional profile. While I started and ended every day with a balanced meal and could grab a piece of fruit and yogurt on the way to a meet to make up for my totally voluntary Diet Coke-&-chips lunch (ehhh, I can’t believe I ate like that and managed to be a competitive athlete), she had meals of American cheese and mustard at home.

      I realize that this sounds a little authoritarian but when I saw a news report about how kids were throwing so much more of their lunches away now, my response what that it was not a reason to change back… keep offering it and eventually they will be hungry enough to eat it and/or their expectations will change. I thought that was pretty standard advice for developing healthy eating habits with kids.

    • Ms_Morlowe

      Kids can bring junk food to school in the States? Seriously? We don’t have school lunches in most schools in Ireland, but for the last 10+ years schools have issued regulations to parents about what they can give their kids for lunch at school. Even when I was in primary school before that, we weren’t allowed to only have sweets for lunch. My mother had huge problems with my youngest brother, because he’d only eat nutella sandwiches, and chocolate spread wasn’t allowed in his school. In general, all chocolate, crisps/chips, fizzy drinks, etc are banned. And even though we’ve no school lunches, we were given a carton of milk. There is no way we’d ever be able to have chips/fries and coke for lunch!

      • http://equalsuf.wordpress.com Jayn

        Bring? My high school had pop and candy bars in vending machines and at the cantina, and I don’t think that’s atypical for Canadian/US schools. Even in elementary school we had ice cream on Fridays. The only regulation I remember having was a ban on peanut products.

  • smrnda

    I think the view of the government as some threatening Other might be a part of that privilege distress that was mentioned either on this blog or another one on patheos. Some groups of privileged people have always gotten what they wanted, so the moment the government actually starts doing things in the interests of the rest of the populace they start crying that it’s not fair. The problem is with most conservatives today, it isn’t true – most of them are not wealthy or powerful, though they may identify themselves as such and then the working-class conservative feels outrage when the rich get taxed more.

    Perhaps it’s just prejudice – the government advocates for women, minorities, and tries to make at least some small token gestures towards religious minorities. To some people it’s a zero sum game – either the government is for these other groups, then it’s against white guys.

  • Hilary

    FWIW, I grew up with my mother saying that taxes are a shared investment in a common future. I may grumble about paying them, but I’d rather pay taxes then not.

  • Kevin Alexander

    I think that the hatred of government is the success of decades of right wing propaganda. The aim is to separate the people from the only entity that has the power to protect them from those who really are out to get you.

  • Noelle

    You are the government and the government is you.

    It never fails to amaze me how many in the US don’t understand and appreciate this. Did Schoolhouse Rock not teach them anything? Or have they never even heard of such a thing? Civics and government classes were required in school in my day. Are they not now?

  • Pingback: Forward Thinking: Civic Responsibility Roundup


text:
Doug Kmiec, the Charlie Brown of American Catholicism…

…is back to totally trusting that our God King means well and is not the obvious and naked enemy of the Catholic Church–and plus he’s the Peace President, doncha know–not to mention the spying on people who criticize DHS, indefinite detainment, and assassination of American citizens president. Let us all hail the Dear Leader.

  • The Deuce

    He’s not Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was just gullible and easily persuaded. Kmiec, on the other hand, was solidly in Lucy… er Obama’s tank all along, and just needed to perform the whole dog and pony show of looking like he was Very Concerned As A Good Catholic, while in reality looking for any pretext he could use as a fig leaf for his inevitable public return to his actual position.

    • http://www.likelierthings.com Jon W

      How do you know?

      • The Deuce

        I suppose I don’t *know* with the certainty that I know that 1+1=2, but I’m certain beyond a reasonable doubt. I know it the same way anybody is able to tell what drives anybody else: by watching their actions.

        Let’s put it this way. I predicted all along that Kmiec was going to find an excuse to rationalize support for the mandate as soon as he could, having already covered his ass with a bit of hand-wringing to show everyone that he was Very Concerned (TM) and therefore Still A Good Catholic (TM). I predicted this because he had made his leftist political worldview and his love of Obama abundantly clear, and had used it to rationalize supporting and/or overlooking terrible evils in the past. I think the correctness of my prediction is a pretty good indication that I understood what he was about.

        I thought Mark was right that it wasn’t good for Fr. Z to pile on Kmiec at the time that he wrote his Very Concerned (TM) article, on the slim chance that Kmiec was actually sincere, but I also thought that Fr. Z was correct in thinking that he almost surely wasn’t.

      • Dale Price

        True enough. The other option is that Professor Kmiec is very, very stupid.

  • Andy, Bad Person

    What a stunning piece of lies that article was, with an even worse comment section. Opposition to the contraception mandate is a political tool? Really? Is that why Every. Single. Bishop. has come out against it?

    There’s also another great connection between Left and Right in the comments under the article. Just like how most criticisms of the Right are met with “You must be pro-abortion!” in conservative circles, any criticism of this article is met with “I didn’t see you criticizing the war 4 years ago!”

    Only two sides to every issue. The commenters straight-facedly say that we should not be striving for a culture war, and fighting against Obama is “un-Christlike(!)”. Because apparently the Church is never counter-cultural and always goes with what their leaders tell them to.

    So, everybody, let’s all follow immoral mandates. For Fellowship!

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Perhaps I could have some help here. During this whole kerfuffle, several folks I’ve talked to, listened to, and read have said that the Bishops basically supported the healthcare reform, even though there were clearly several aspects of it, beyond the contraception mandate, that folks found troubling at best, and an all-out assault on our Constitutional liberties at worst. Just how did the Bishops’ support of this go down? I’ve been looking, but it’s tough to find real accounts and not interpretations of the events. Does anyone know of or have links to some good sources? The most cynical interpretation of this is certainly troubling, but I don’t want to take it on some editorial’s word for what happened. I’d like to find out more about just what the Bishops said, if they did support the reform, and how was it framed then. Just asking.

    • John H.

      This bishops do support healthcare reform, but they did not support the legislation that was passed, because it did not provide adequate conscience protection. We do need healthcare reform in this country. That’s not what the “Affordable Care Act” is, but that’s what we get when politicians have insurance lobbyists, and lawyers in their pockets.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Yeah, that’s what I’m trying to find out. More than once I’ve read or heard that the bishops didn’t just support the concept of health care reform, but specifically supported *this* reform under the promise that it allow for exemptions for conscience regarding abortion/contraception and the like. So that’s not what happened? I just ask because that seems the commonly accepted version of what happened. I wonder if there are any links to some source or another to break it down.

        • Ted Seeber

          Wasn’t the Bishops. It was Rep. Burt Stupak and his small cadre of pro-life Democrats who finally got the verbal promise of conscience protections for doctors, nurses, and most importantly taxpayers.

          It seems like Stupak had barely left Obama’s office to vote yes on the Bill before the promise was betrayed.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Basically, to be more specific, looking for news stories or the like. For instance, I have a piece written by Bill Donahue stating that not one bishop ever supported Obamacare. That’s fine as far as it goes. But I can hardly take his word for it; I’m looking for the actual sources is what I’m saying.

        • http://www.pilgrimage.subcreators.com Lori Pieper

          Dave, have you tried the USSCB webste? Look for the bishops’ actual letters and
          statements. Everthing else is only opinion – usually erroneous – about what they said.

          • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

            Lori, I’ve looked there, but so far (and I admit I haven’t looked at *every* doc), I’ve only found the basic ‘we are for healthcare for everyone’ and ‘we reject the mandate that forces employers to violate their religious conscience regarding contraception and similar things.’ I’m trying to find something to answer those who basically say that the Bishops were, on the whole and except for their opposition to any contraception mandates, otherwise supportive of the overall healthcare reform as manifested in Obama’s plan. I’ve just not found anything yet that clearly says they never supported it for a host of reasons, not just that one reason. That’s what I’m looking for. I’ll keep looking; I just thought someone might have had a quick link. Thanks though.

            • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

              Dave, I seem to remember the same things you do….you may have to dig back to 2010 when this atrocity was passed to see any statement on the bishops.

              At the time, I did wonder about the “what about Catholic employers or employees” when hearing about the proposed exception rule for the Church, Amish, etc…

            • http://www.pilgrimage.subcreators.com Lori Pieper

              Dave, I don’t remember the date of the individual document or documents, but the bishops did lay out a number of criteria for what a good healthcare plan would have to include, such as guarantees that the poorest people would have access (i.e. those who can’t afford any kind of assurance). It may be that what they said was critical of the plan as it stood. I can’t remember. They also said something — though very little considering what a problem it’s going to be — about care for the elderly. My advice is – keep digging.

              (I would say that the bishops like most of the rest of us, didn’t realize the extent of the deception involved in the bill, or the real meaning of “we’re going to have to pass it to see what’s in it.” What it meant that the most important parts of the bill weren’t even in the bill, but were going to be in the regulations established by the HHS and other “boards” that put decisions about who will get care and when in the hands not of lawmakers or citizens, or even patients and doctors, but of government bureaucrats. The bishops couldn’t address things they didn’t know about, and unlike “pundits” and most people in comboxes, thought it unwise to rely on rumors in making statements. Understandable, but still an opportunity missed. Well, the whole thing is a monstrous mess. the quicker it’s declared unconstitutional, the better).

  • http://www.ecclesiamilitans.net Craig Pryor

    The scariest thing of all is that Kmiec is not alone. There are hoards (good word) of “Catholics” who feel the same way. We all need to be strong in support of our Bishops!

    • http://www.communionantiphons.org Andy, Bad Person

      hoards (good word)

      Wrong word! It’s “hordes.”

      • victor

        And in the case of pottage-purchasing Catholics, I believe the word is spelled with a silent “W” at the front, too.

  • victor

    “To a good many theologians, this worked well enough to avoid formal cooperation with evil…”

    Uhhh.. Citation Needed? And wouldn’t this be more in an ethicist’s wheelhouse anyway?

  • Jen

    Hey now, I like Charlie Brown. He was innocently sincere and trusting. Too trusting, but still good-hearted. Kmiec is… none of that.

  • Telemachus

    It’s telling that this piece by Kmiec is published in the National Fish-Wrap, where dissidents are welcomed with warm hugs.

  • Peggy R

    Can I add commentary on his dumb economic thinking. He’s only a lawyer, after all.

    Kmiec is mad that some one might choose not to purchase insurance (b/c he can right now), which he claims would cause others’ cost of insurance to increase. Really? Well, la di da, even if true. Yes, lots of products and services can be provided at lower average/marginal cost as subscribers/purchasers increase in number. Should we make everyone buy some new technology to make sure it succeeds and is cheap? Does he not see how this is not freedom? Further, Kmiec presumes that the guy w/o insurance can’t pay his medical bills, the cost of which he thinks will be borne by other clients of the medical facility. Retail prices for the insured are inflated to ensure coverage of costs, frankly, and from other inefficient incentives. The uninsured person is usually charged a lesser fee, but not below cost from what I have am aware. Thus, he is not subsidized. Only the poor are subsidized by other consumers and taxpayers, as well as those who donate to charitable hospitals.

    • Ted Seeber

      I think a grand example has been solar panels. *Decades* worth of tax incentives to buy, and the thing that finally brought the price down was a trade war where a foreign nation (China) decided to use *supply side economics* to corner the market.

  • Ted Seeber

    One of the things I read in the comments really bothered me “It’s not the Bishops or Obama, it’s the Pope who is the problem”. Dude, if you feel that way, a man by the name of Martin Luther solved your problem for you 500 years ago- there are 30,000 other Christian Churches out there to choose from if you no longer believe in Apostolic Authority.

  • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

    I’ve been against this so-called “Affordable” Care Act (aka Obamacare), from the beginning. No where in the formerly used document called The US Constitution does it state that something along these lines is legal. It forces people to buy insurance or pay a fine. Is it a fine or a tax? The regime keeps going back and forth on this. The HHS mandate notwithstanding, this who piece of crap legislation is a power grab by the government to control our lives, force insurance companies out of business and marginalise the Church. Anyone in their right mind (no pun intended) would realise this is completely illegal.

    I am all for HC reform. Eliminate the restrictions on the insurance companies so they can cross state lines, and the rates will be more reasonable.

    And I am speaking as a person who has no health insurance, nor do I plan to get it, especially if Obamacare is somehow declared constitutional (I can’t see how, but I’ve seen stranger things).

    • Peggy R

      The bishops appeared to support the whole endeavor until the conscience and abortion provisions turned out unfavorable to the Church’s beliefs. They would have cheered the damned mess otherwise. Depend on it.

      • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

        Peggy….a little more charity towards our shepherds! It’s public knowledge they support HC reform, and they may have applauded the effort, but like everyone else, no one knew what was in the bill, like old Na-Po said (pass to the bill to see what’s in it). Some (like you and I) knew it was going to be garbage anyway, but our bishops and other friends didn’t realise it until recently.

        It’s okay…better late than never. In my mind our bishops should be apolitical as possible, but when they get smacked by Caesar, they should be able to defend themselves and their flock. That’s why they have the shepherd’s crooks!! ;-)

        • Ted Seeber

          I supported only one small portion of the bill (the end to the concept of “pre existing condition”- well guess what, life is a pre-existing condition). I wanted it passed as I’ve had *extreme* problems finding health insurance.

          Then they started turning it into a giveaway to the big health insurance companies. I’m very disappointed. I was hoping for something with more subsidiarity- say patient-owned coops and better tax protection of HSAs.

        • Peggy R

          CP: Yes, I suppose some more charity is called for. Yet, while I can’t cite a particular moment here, things I’ve heard bishops, even Card. Dolan say, suggest to me that they remain fundamentally behind the notions embodied in O-care and public payment of medical costs. I don’t know where the USCCB stands in the individual mandate. Surely, the HHS contraception etc., mandate ought to provide ample evidence that there’s no limiting principle in the law. I am not convinced that the bishops (collectively) understand the evils of the bill beyond the objectionable conscience and abortion provisions. I hope and pray they see the error of the law as a whole and move on.

          • Peggy R

            P.S. An illustration of why I think the bishops still don’t get the larger problems with this bill. All they say is they want “universal healthcare” and want protection for life and consciences. Sigh. Just sigh.

            And the USCCB hangs with radical amnesty groups (recent event at Newseum) and opposes cutting of public aid to illegal aliens (Ryan plan). Jinkies!

            I pray for them!

    • Ted Seeber

      Actually, in the Reinterpreted Constitution of the Post Doe Vs Bolton era, it’s right there in Article I Section 8: Congress has full control over all interstate commerce. Or as reinterpreted in 1973, Congress has full control over ALL Commerce.

      Everything since then is tied to the interpretation of what is interstate- from the case where apparently marijuana grown in an attic is interstate commerce, to the case that boycotting trade with Burma is interstate commerce, MANY cases since Doe vs Bolton have come down the pike, each one incrementally expanding the role of government in the marketplace, especially the charitable marketplace, and reducing room for the Church.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      If it will make you feel any better, unless something comes up within the next two weeks, my family will be joining the ranks of the great uninsured!

  • Pingback: Trackback

  • Pingback: Trackback


text:
Feinstein Introduces Sweeping Gun Ban Bill

At least one gun control proposal is now in the hopper, and if it becomes law, it would be a big change.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca)   announced plans to introduce a sweeping gun control bill that would ban 158 types of rifles, as well as other shotguns, hand guns and semi-automatic rifles.

Feinstein claims that no guns will be confiscated. Her aim is to do away with the weapons by attrition over time. Representative Carolyn McCarthy, (D-NY) will file the same bill in the House of Representatives.

A Salon article describing the press conference with Senator Feinstein and Representative McCarthy reads in part:

In a press conference Thursday, Democrats unveiled a new version of the assault weapons ban that they will introduce into the House and Senate, which includes a ban on 158 specifically named military-style firearms.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who sponsored the Senate version of the bill and who worked on the assault weapons ban from the 90s that expired in 2004, said in her remarks that this will be a “tough battle,” but she is “incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in this country.”

“The common thread in these shootings in that each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon” or a large capacity magazine, Feinstein said.

The legislation specifically prohibits 158 types of military grade firearms, as well as other semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can have a detachable magazine and have at least one military characteristic. As Feinstein explained, the 1994 version of the law had a two-characteristic test for a weapon to be banned, but that was “too easy to work around.”

Feinstein also emphasized that the ban will not effect weapons for hunting and sporting, and protects “2200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. They are, by make and model, exempted from the legislation.” She added: “No weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time. Therefore there is no sunset on this bill.” (Read more here.)

Obama Says He Will Use Executive Orders as Part of Gun Control Package

President Barack Obama, official portrait

President Obama has indicated that he will use executive orders to side-step Congress in his push for gun control.

The use of executive orders has grown over the decades. In my opinion, it has reached the point that it verges on making Congress obsolete. Aside from whatever issue is in question at the time executive orders are used, there is another, underlying issue.

Is Congress going to be reduced to a bombastic cypher? Are we in effect electing a dictator for four years when we elect a president? Has agency rule-making power, as in the case of the HHS Mandate, become a sort of unelected shadow government?

Congress has ceded its natural functions to other entities by virtue of its unwillingness to perform those functions itself. Congress has the power to belay executive orders and agency mandates. But it won’t use it because it is chasing its own legislative tail by focusing all its efforts on constant partisan wrangling. This partisan brinksmanship has reached the point that it is damaging this country directly and destroying the balance of powers indirectly.

Nature and government abhor a vacuum. If Congress refuses to use the powers it is given under the Constitution, some other governmental entity will take them up. In this case, the president, by means of executive orders and faceless agency bureaucrats, by means of regulations and mandates, are usurping Congress’s rightful function.

That means that we the people are being dealt out of the discussion. The president is the one official who should be elected by all the people, but thanks to the electoral college and modern targeted campaigning, that is no longer true.

Both presidents Bush and Obama were elected by means of targeted campaigns aimed at sections of the voters in electorally important states. These campaigns ignored the rest of the country. In November 2012, this resulted in a win for President Obama that was achieved by the odd combination of an electoral landslide coupled with a razor-thin win in the popular vote.

More and more, the president is not elected by all the people, but is, just like members of Congress, elected by targeted coalitions of special interest groups in key areas.

The result is a government so fractured and focused on itself that it no longer even attempts to govern the country. Both sides in these contentious debates about gun control, the deficit and our unending cycle of wars are focused on winning, not on governing. What I mean by that is that they are focused on what it takes to enact the law. Period.

So we have the sorry spectacle of a president who flat-out says he will use executive orders to wire around Congress on one of the most contentious issues facing the country. This is a disastrous move for the country. It can and will create more divisiveness and anger in an already divided and angry nation.

The Associated Press article discussing President Obama’s plans for the upcoming gun control debate reads in part:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.

The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.

Obama is expected to unveil his proposals Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.

At the same time Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing — including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks — despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.

“Will all of them get through this Congress? I don’t know,” Obama said at a news conference Monday.

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” he said. “My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works.”

The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden’s gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.

White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress. (Read more here.)

Biden Discusses His Committee’s Progress on Gun Control Legislation

Vice President Joe Biden discusses his ideas about potential gun control legislation in this YouTube video.

YouTube Preview Image

Is This a Surprise? White House Considering Broad Gun Control Measures, Including Executive Orders

White House weighs broad gun-control

The Washington Post

By Philip Rucker

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association that one source said could include rallying support from Wal-Mart and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses. White House aides have also been in regular contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (I), an outspoken gun-control advocate who could emerge as a powerful surrogate for the Obama administration’s agenda.

The Biden group, formed last month after the massacre at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school that killed 20 children and six adults, plans to submit a package of recommendations to President Obama this month. Once Obama’s proposals are set, he plans to lead a public-relations offensive to generate popular support.

“They are very clearly committed to looking at this issue comprehensively,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who has been involved in the discussions. The proposals under consideration, he added, are “a deeper exploration than just the assault-weapons ban.”

The gun-control push is just one part of an ambitious political agenda that Obama has pledged to pursue after his decisive reelection victory in November, including comprehensiveimmigration reform, climate-change legislation and long-term deficit reduction. Obama also faces a reshuffling of his Cabinet, and a looming debate over the nation’s debt ceiling that will compete for his time and attention in the coming months.

Seeking expansive mandate

In addition to potential legislative proposals, Biden’s group has expanded its focus to include measures that would not need congressional approval and could be quickly implemented by executive action, according to interest-group leaders who have discussed options with Biden and key Cabinet secretaries. Possibilities include changes to federal mental-health programs and modernization of gun-tracking efforts by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Read more here.)

Hundreds of Utah Teachers Show Up for Weapons Training

Dec. 27, 2012: Clark Aposhian, President of Utah Shooting Sport Council, demonstrates with a plastic gun during concealed-weapons training for 200 Utah teachers. (AP)
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GMPfmSzP

SALT LAKE CITY – Gun-rights advocates in Utah offered six hours of training Thursday in handling concealed weapons for hundreds of Utah teachers in the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.

The latest effort to arm teachers to confront school assailants was organized by the Utah Shooting Sports Council, which hosted the training session to help educators become eligible for concealed firearm permits, FOX 13 News reported.

More than 200 teachers flocked to the training class in the Salt Lake City suburb of West Valley City. Raye Ann Blauer, a kindergarten teacher, told FOX 13 she is considering using her permit to carry a firearm at school.

“[A]fter everything that happened in Connecticut, I want to be aware of how I can help in the classroom and protect my kids and whatnot. Be aware,” Blauer said. “I think it’s really smart. Especially with everything that’s happened lately.”

English teacher Kevin Leatherbarrow holds a license to carry a concealed weapon and doesn’t see anything wrong with arming teachers in the aftermath of the deadly Connecticut school shooting.

“We’re sitting ducks,” said Leatherbarrow, who works at a Utah charter school. “You don’t have a chance in hell. You’re dead — no ifs, ands or buts.”

In Ohio, a firearms group said it was launching a test program in tactical firearms training for 24 teachers. The Arizona attorney general is proposing a change to state law to allow an educator in each school to carry a gun. (Read more here.)

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/28/teachers-in-utah-ohio-get-free-gun-training/#ixzz2GMPPg8JU

Lest we forget …

These irreplaceable people lost their lives in Newton Connecticut one week ago today.

Don’t let political squabbling make us forget them.

Dozens of Michigan Schools Close Due to Rumors of Violence

Dozens of Michigan schools cancelled classes today because of fall-out from the Sandy Hook tragedy, combined with the Mayan calendar nonsense.

This is just a symptom of how raw the people of this nation are this week.

It raises the question that I asked here. Why did our leader rush this country into a divisive debate on gun control before the victims of this latest atrocity were even buried?

Grieving our losses and trying to bring ourselves and our families together for a holy and healing Christmas are about all the people of this country can handle right now.

Aside from executive orders, which I think would be terribly unwise, there is nothing that can be done until after the New Year. Congress and the president are engaged in an insult-slinging fight over the “fiscal cliff.” Isn’t playing chicken with our economic security enough trauma from Washington for now?

A wise leader understands that there is a time for everything. I believe that opening a debate about solutions — especially when the proposed solutions are things that divide us — is poor leadership in this sensitive time. I think it is uncaring leadership. By that I mean that I think the president has focused on taking advantage of what he sees as a political opportunity and ignored  the well-being of the American people. There was no practical reason why he had to open this debate this week. None.

The Associated Press article about school closings in Michigan reads in part:

DETROIT (AP) — Dozens of Michigan schools canceled classes for thousands of students to cool off rumored threats of violence and problems related to doomsday scenarios based on the Mayan calendar, officials said Thursday.

Public schools in Genesee and Lapeer counties, neighboring counties north of the Detroit area, started the Christmas break Wednesday night rather than hold classes the rest of the week. Meanwhile, police investigated whether students made false claims about guns at the high school in Grand Blanc, saidJohn Potbury, a spokesman for the Genesee County prosecutor.

Last week’s shooting at a Connecticut elementary school “changed all of us. … Canceling school is the right thing to do,” Genesee County schools said in a statement. (Read more here.)

Unseemly haste …

The funerals are not finished.

Why did the President rush this country into a divisive debate about gun control before the victims of this tragedy were buried?

Why the unseemly haste?

Couldn’t he have given this country time to grieve before pushing us into another political fight? Would it be so hard to wait a few days?

Christmas is in four days.

Why didn’t he at least give us time to bury our dead and be together with our families at Christmas before forcing another battle on us?

Biden Holds First Gun Control Meeting

Vice President Joe Biden began meetings on possible gun control legislation today.

The most interesting point, at least for me, is that the vice president indicated that he expects votes on whatever he proposes after the first of the year.

I interpret that to mean that the President has probably decided not to issue executive orders about this, at least for now.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives has announced a push to ban the sale of high capacity magazines. This is not a new idea. Senate Democrats tried to attach such a ban to an unrelated piece of legislation last summer.

What all this means to us is that we have a window of time to think about this and decide what we want our Congress and president to do. From all indications, the Democrats are focusing their efforts on gun-control and ammunition control legislation. Although they mention a more comprehensive approach in their comments, the focus and the first thing they mention is always guns.

I’m going to try to write several posts that I hope will lead Public Catholic readers into a serious conversation of all these issues. It’s our country and we need to be part of the discussion about its future.

The article concerning Vice President Biden’s meeting today says in part:

Wasting no time, Vice President Joe Biden meets on Thursday with “law enforcement leaders” from across the country to launch work on a series of recommendations to battle gun violence in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
The 1 p.m. meeting is to include White House officials, as well as Attorney General Eric Holder, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the White House said.
President Barack Obama on Wednesday tasked Biden with leading an administrationwide effort to craft concrete proposals for tackling what Obama called an “epidemic” of gun violence. The vice president will report back no later than January.
Obama pushed Congress to pass a series of traditional gun control measures quickly. “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons,” he said on Wednesday. “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips. A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”
He added, “I urge the new Congress to hold votes on these measures next year in a timely manner.”
But he also embraced a broader approach, stressing that “there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.”(Read more here.)

Obama Puts Biden in Control of Gun Control Initiative

President Barack Obama, official portrait

President Obama announced today that he has put Vice President Joe Biden in charge of his efforts for reform concerning shootings such as what happened last week at Sandy Hook. Vice President Biden is a long-time supporter of gun control.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York called a press conference in which he pushed the president to use his executive order powers to make a unilateral regulation which would be a de facto form of gun control. President Obama has refused this, at least so far.

Unless President Obama does decide to use his executive order power to make a sweeping change on his own, this process will take quite a while. For one thing, Congress is still embroiled in the “fiscal cliff” debate. If the president allows things to proceed normally, I would expect him to announce more specific changes at the State of Union Address. However, there is nothing written in stone about that assumption.

One question, at least for me, is whether or not anyone in this administration sincerely intends to discuss this problem and look for solutions. Are they just saying this with the intention to concentrate on a single-law answer? I am also concerned about civil liberties generally in this climate and with this president. He has already shown a willingness to trample religious liberties.

Right now, he has the backing of the public. I also expect most of the press to support whatever he does unthinkingly. A lot of people are signing on to vote for and support what he comes up with without having any idea whatsoever what it will be or what it will entail.

As for me, I will continue to urge Public Catholic readers to take a more thoughtful, comprehensive and long-term approach to thinking about this. Use your minds, and don’t let propaganda and emotion carry you away.

The Associated Press article describing President Obama’s new initiative says in part:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is launching an administration-wide effort to curbgun violence, underscoring the growing political consensus over tightening gun restrictions following the horrific massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.

Obama is tasking Vice President Joe Biden, a longtime gun control advocate, with spearheading the effort. In remarks from the White House on Wednesday, Obama will outline a process for pursuing policy changes following the school shooting, though he is not expected to call for specific measures.

The president has vowed to use “whatever power this office holds” to safeguard the nation’s children after Friday’s shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn. Twenty children and six adults were killed at the school by a gunman carrying an arsenal of ammunition and a high-powered, military-style rifle.

The White House sees some urgency in formulating a policy response to the shooting, even as Obama and his top aides are consumed with averting the “fiscal cliff” before tax hikes and spending cuts take effect in January. The incident has prompted several congressional gun rights supporters to consider new legislation to control firearms, and there is some fear that their willingness to engage could fade as the shock and sorrow over the Newtown shooting eases.

Many pro-gun lawmakers also have called for a greater focus on mental health issues and the impact of violent entertainment. White House aides say stricter gun laws alone are not the answer.

“It’s a complex problem that requires more than one solution,” White House spokesman Jay Carneysaid Tuesday. “It calls for not only re-examining our gun laws and how well we enforce them, but also for engaging mental health professionals, law enforcement officials, educators, parents and communities to find those solutions.” (Read the entire article here.)


text:
Republicans continue post-election outreach programs

Following their losses in the 2012 elections, Republican officials across America have stepped up their outreach efforts to improve their standing with black voters, voters over age 65, college students, disaster victims, voters with disabilities and women voters.

• Ron Weiser, finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, continues his party’s outreach to black voters.

• Sen. Tom Coburn explores new strategy for Republican outreach to voters over age 65.

• Florida Republican leaders explain outreach effort to appeal to younger voters.

• Rep. Scott Garrett continues Republican outreach to victims of natural disasters.

• Rick Santorum spearheads Republican outreach to voters with disabilities and those who love them.

• House Republicans outline plan to demonstrate commitment to women and minorities.

• Glenn Reynolds also offers his plan for Republican outreach to women voters.

• Rep. Steve King continues Republican outreach to Latino voters.

  • Carstonio

    You’re confusing values with rhetoric.

    “Strong families” is code for male headship and homophobia.

    “Personal responsibility” means the old racist myth about black laziness, as Invisible Neutrino noted.

    “Fiscal restraint” again means opposition to welfare, and opposition to any government program that would make society more just. That includes everything from Social Security to tougher regulation of Wall Street. A party truly interested in restraint wouldn’t have fought two wars on the national credit card.

    “Individual liberty” means business owners operate as they please, even if it means discrimination in employment, unsafe products, and unsafe working conditions. A par truly interested in liberty would oppose DOMA as infringing on an individual’s marriage decisions.

    Whatever the GOP might have advocated originally, now it’s about protecting the economic and social power of rich straight white Christian men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    I like the idea that the GOP apologist position is ‘look we know what’s best for black people but for some reason they just won’t admit it and keep voting against us, sheesh’

  • http://www.facebook.com/tomstone Thomas Stone

    90% of black people voting against us? Must be because people lie on blogs. If only we Republicans weren’t so galldarned honest!

  • P J Evans

     Actually, Social Security isn’t a budget item. It’s medical-care costs (lots of which is insurance) that’s increasing  and a budget item.

  • Daughter

     TANF is not only a piddly fraction of the US budget, it’s a piddly fraction for anyone to live on. In my state, people get an average of $423 a month – and I know many states are far less. Even if they’re lucky enough to have Section 8 housing vouchers, they’re still paying $200-$300 a month in rent out of pocket. Most don’t have cars, and the cheapest way to get around on public transportation is a monthly bus pass, which costs $72. And then if they’re lucky, they might have $200 worth of food stamps – for a family of three, four, or five. Still, that leaves them with $50 to $150 of disposable income, with which to pay for clothing, toiletries, household supplies, furniture, school supplies, or anything else they might need. (So for example, what happens when your toddler outgrows their toddler bed, and needs a twin? The cheapest twin beds around are about $300 – I know, because I shopped around for this not that long ago).

     That’s what makes this “they vote Democratic for a check” meme so ugly – as if people want to live on so little.  Although if it’s a choice between one party that will at least give you some help, and another that will let you starve, it’s not a choice.

    And then if you want to do better, there are obstacles. Like getting your state-funded child care voucher pulled just as you get a job or go back to school.

  • Carstonio

    Also, every accusation I’ve heard of Democratic pandering implies that the party is giving voters “free stuff” to buy their allegiance. Not only racist, but also infuriatingly ignorant of how government spending works.

  • Gotchaye

    I have a hard time judging Jeff too harshly for the stance he takes on Republican outreach to non-white voters because, after all, that’s basically my position with respect to people with Jeff’s stated views.  I think that common liberal values – strong families, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint, individual liberties, etc – are congruent with Jeff’s, and I’m always a little mystified that people who talk like he does, and who don’t appear to be particularly bigoted or particularly rich, vote Republican.  I’m sometimes tempted to think that the problem is messaging.  Liberals have to figure out how to overcome the manufactured narrative, which the media are generally complicit in, that the Republicans are actually anything like as good as the Democrats at achieving all of those values.  But many like Jeff don’t want to hear it, packaged in history and economics and other familiar trappings.  So how should it be presented?

  • Pat

    These people still scare me.  While Republican’s candidates filthy mouths did a lot to hand the election to the Democrats in 2012, I’m worried that it won’t affect future elections.  Obama had an awesomely coordinated campaign and get-out-the-vote effort in 2008 and 2012, but that did approximately jack in the state-level elections between those years.  In 2010, the face of the Republican Party wasn’t the relatively genial and sane Mitt Romney, but Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin.  Still the same amount of racism, religious bigotry, and misogyny, and they won in landslides because their state-level organizations were much better than the Democrats’, and back then they didn’t have gerrymandering and incumbency to give them a boost.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    They may not have had gerrymandering in 2010, but state-level legislatures, IIRC, can set boundaries for federal districts, so Republican-controlled state legislatures helped even during the period of 2006-2010 when the Dems held both Houses of Congress.

  • Darkrose

    For example, the African American community votes overwhelmingly Democratic (95%, I think?), yet for African American Christians, certain Democratic positions (e.g. abortion) are problematic.  So for that subset of African American voters who vote Democratic in spite of their beliefs, (a) why do they do that, and (b) how can Republicans connect with those individuals and persuade them to vote Republican?

    While I do not speak for the entire African American Community ™, I think it’s fair to say that it’s pretty simple:Republicans can connect with black folks when the Republican Party stops being a haven for racists.Before you tell me that not all Republicans are racist, I’ll point out that I never said that. What I am saying is that when you see people emailing pictures of the President with a bone through his nose, or watermelons all over the White House lawn, or people calling the First Lady “Moochelle”, when the President’s intelligence, competence, and Americanness have been questioned since day one, when he had to have Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in modern history–and when the supposed leaders of the Republican Party, instead of denouncing this blatant racism, tolerate it, ignore it, and even accuse those who point it out of being “the real racists”….we notice that. I notice that. I see Republicans engaging in the worst kind of disrespect for a woman who grew up on the South Side of Chicago, like me, who went to the same high school as my best friend, whose daughters look a lot like me at that age, married to a guy who’s a big dork with brown skin, short nappy hair and ears that stick out, kind of like my dad.

    I see Republicans questioning whether the President has the right to be where he is, and I remember all of the times my own intelligence and competence were questioned because of the color of my skin. I watch as Condoleeza Rice is held up as proof Republicans aren’t racist while Susan Rice is called “not very bright” by the man who wanted Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency, a man who graduated almost dead last in his Naval Academy class, and I note that the most notable difference between those two black female Stanford scholars (again, like me) named Rice is their party affiliation. I watch as Colin Powell is essentially drummed out of the Republican Party for openly supporting the first black President, and for daring to call the party out–however belatedly–on their racism. And I notice, as do people older than me who remember the Civil Rights Movement and the people who died so that I could have the right to vote and exercise that right, as Republican governors do everything in their power to keep black people from voting like nothing has changed since the 1960′s.

    And none of this takes into account that I’m female and gay, and therefore, according to your own party platform, am not to be trusted to make my own medical decisions and don’t deserve to legally marry the person I love.

    Quite honestly, the fact that you’re even asking the question after the most recent election highlights the problem. You’re asking, “What’s the problem with black people, that they won’t vote Republican?” when you should be asking, “What’s the problem with Republicans, that 95-98% of black people will work hard to vote against us?”

  • Jeff

    “Implicit in this statement is the idea that the default member of the party is a white male, otherwise there’d be no “out” in the reaching.”

    No, it’s not at all, but thanks for calling me a racist.  Rather, the statement reflects the belief on the part of Republicans that the party’s values have universal appeal, and don’t need to be packaged and presented differently to different constituencies.

  • Jeff

    Lori, are you aware of economists who argue that running a $1T annual budget deficit, and the continued growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are sustainable into the future without a fiscal catastrophe?

    Maybe you actually do.  But even so, my point was simply that the allegation that Republicans wish to cut entitlement spending because they’re racists is as ridiculous as ridiculous can be.  Republicans want to cut entitlement spending because they don’t believe it’s sustainable.  And they’re right.  But if you have an information source that is not severely limited who can explain how spending $1T more than we take in can work out, by all means, please explain it to poorly-sourced me.  Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

  • Carstonio

    If you want to be taken seriously, don’t compare national economies to household budgets. And don’t engage in pearl-clutching over accusations of racism. I’m not particularly interested in whether Republican lawmakers are motivated by racism or sexism. What matters is how the treat minorities and women, in their rhetoric and in their policies.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If we ended a whole bunch of federal subsidies to business entities that don’t need subsidies (I don’t have the data to tell you which categories of entities I mean, but ‘highly profitable oil companies’ is at the top of the list), and if we taxed capital gains at the same rates as labor income (or, preferably, at higher rates than labor income), and if we put a fuck of a lot more effort into making sure everyone able and willing to be employed is employed at a living-wage job and can thus pay more in federal tax withholdings than they get in the annual federal tax refund, the deficit problem would quietly go away. It’d go away faster if we cut the military budget to the size the Pentagon wants, and faster yet if we cut the military budget so that we are outspending the second-highest-military-budget country by a little instead of by a lot.
    But that would take money away from rich people and it would take penis size away from powerful people and it would provide concrete benefits to not-rich people, so Republicans won’t ever support it.

  • Lori

    Republicans want to cut entitlement spending because they don’t believe it’s sustainable.

    Jeff, you are aware of the size of the US military budget are you not? If the issue is unsustainable spending why isn’t the GOP taking an axe to the Pentagon’s budget?

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

    I can only assume that you are unaware of the difference between macro & micro economics. If you were aware you would know that this tired old “Bev & Jim at the kitchen table, going over the bills” bit is inaccurate and irrelevant. It makes the ill-informed feel clever and that makes it easier for those who actually know what’s what to manipulate them, but it bears no actual relationship to the way the budget of a sovereign nation operates.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

    Unlike the federal government, I can’t print my own money.

    But if it takes spending 33% more than I make, you bet your fucking life I will do it because the alternative is “Which of the kids do we stop feeding?”

  • Lori

    the belief on the part of Republicans that the party’s values have
    universal appeal, and don’t need to be packaged and presented
    differently to different constituencies.

    Even assuming that this is true, the GOP so strongly favors one constituency (aging white men*) over all the other constituencies that it’s main packaging and presentation is racist, misogynist and homophobic. Here’s a tip for you and the rest of the GOP from those of us who are not old, white men—we can hear you.

    *ETA: Aging white men living in the South

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, there’s some resemblance. Households with more expenses than income can and (at least sometimes) do solve that by increasing their income. Case in point: hi. In the first half of December, I worked 88.25 hours. Full time with no overtime at this job is 75. Shockingly, my paycheck yesterday (after all the taxes and things came out) was more’n twenty percent higher than my paycheck from any pay period where I worked no overtime.

    But suggest that the federal government increase its revenues and Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and go LA LA LA.

  • Lori

    Good point.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    BC, I regret that I have but one like to give to your comment.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    If the growth of GDP (national production) outpaces the growth of government spending, the deficit automatically shrinks over time as a concern.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Incidentally, for all the “RAAAAR WE WILL BITE TEH BULLET” from the Republicans about military spending cuts as part of their “Grand Bargain”, guess what they did NOT do the first chance they got at structuring a budget under those conditions.

    Thaaaaaaat’s riiiiiiight!

    They did NOT cut military spending.

    So much for being committed to anything except covering their own asses and those of the aforementioned old white guys.

  • Lori

    They’re perfectly happy to cut military spending—as long as it’s the money spent on actual humans. They’re perfectly happy to cut numbers at a point when their wars still have the military over-stretched and sending people on far too many deployments. They’re fine with cutting the VA. They’re fine with cutting research into treatments for PTSD. They’re fine with denying disability claims on highly dubious grounds in the name of fighting wastefraudandabuse.

    The toys are sacred though. The military-industrial complex must be continuously feed.

    The out-sourcing budget for executives is also sacred, although the money for the folks who actually do the work is much less so.

  • Tricksterson

    The conditions your talking about ceased to be several centuries ago.  The Catholic Church ceased being a temporal power a long time ago (although Lord and Lady, it does keep trying every now and then, don’t it) .  Get thine head out of both the Middle ages and thine arse.

  • Tricksterson

    Okay, as someone who used to vote Republican, than said to hell with both parties and now reluctantly iuews the Democrats as the lesser of the two dominant evils, what do Republicans really stand for?  Give concrete examples please, not platitudes

  • Tricksterson

    Me, but this guy showed up instead.  Satan would never be that crude.  He is after all a man of wealth and taste.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Also, given how rudely we’ve been behaving to this guy, if he were Satan, by now our souls would surely be laid to waste.

    (note: not advocating being less rude to this guy, he’s asking for it)

  • P J Evans

     They’re still gerrymandering. That’s why the House has a Republican majority, even though the Republicans are a minority of voters in many states where they have most of the seats.

  • P J Evans

     Social Security is not a budget item and IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT.
    It’s paid for by payroll deductions invested in T-bills. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.
    Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.
     And if the Republicans in Congress weren’t owned by corporations, we could have had a health-care program that works a lot better and is less expensive. But no, everything that was proposed that would have done that was ‘socialism’ and ‘wouldn’t work in the US’, even when there are programs that work exactly the same way already in existence, successfully, in the US.

    The Republicans lie a lot.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Jeff lost me when he said that Republicans stand for strong families and fiscal restraint.

    One of these days I’m going to launch the Puppies and Chocolate Party. We won’t actually do anything to increase the supply of puppies or chocolate, but by gum we’ll stand for them, and who could disagree with that?

  • Darkrose

    Make it the Puppies, Kittens and Chocolate Party, and I’ll totally campaign for you.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I dunno, isn’t responding to the expressed needs of citizens pandering?

  • Turcano

    Moreover, Brad Hicks has pointed out that when conservatives compare a government budget to a family budget, they usually ignore a distinction in the type of family budget, a distinction that turns out to be very important.

  • Gotchaye

    I think Stephanie Kelton and others who accept something like Modern Monetary Theory would affirm something like “we can run a $1T annual budget deficit and do better than we would running a smaller deficit for the foreseeable future”.  Although maybe they don’t count on the technicality that they’d want to create a lot of that additional money each year in a way that doesn’t pay interest (printing) rather than creating all of it in a way that provides rents to the financial sector (borrowing).

    Regardless, very few people on the left are actually advocating $1T deficits and unconstrained growth of entitlements.  Most expect the deficit to come down substantially as the economy picks up, and only want a very large deficit now because it saves money in the long run compared to austerity (which many European countries have been forced into, to terrible results).  Virtually all are also happy to endorse proven cost-saving reforms to our health care spending problem, such as the French or German model, which is much more than I can say for everyone on the right without the intellectual honesty to just admit that their plan is to let the poor go without.

    It’s also a little strange to talk about a “Medicare problem” when Medicare is absolutely wonderful compared to private sector health care. Put everyone on Medicare, raise taxes by the difference between what we spend on private health care and what we’d be spending if everyone were on Medicare, and watch as we start running surplus after surplus for longer than we can reasonably hope to predict. Although, really, there’s no reason to raise taxes quite that high. We waste a /ton/ of money on private health care.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Jeff, since you like reducing macroeconomics to microeconomics, let me give you an example.

    I am disabled. I cannot work. I have a condition that will be immensely helped, if not cured, by immensely expensive surgery. I cannot get Medicaid without being on disability or having a child. I was not willing to have a child merely to get Medicaid — personal responsibility. I have been refused disability because I’m only in my 30s and have worked from home in the past. The fact that I am either in too much pain or too high on painkillers to do any work whatsoever means nothing to the right-wing, completely mucked-up state government.

    So, I’m in a situation where I don’t pay taxes. I am on food stamps. My parents have to support me rather than pay toward their retirements, and they can’t consume the fun stuff they would otherwise. I am a pure drain on the economy. I could not get insurance to cover the surgery because: pre-existing condition.

    Then Obamacare. And now I have insurance.

    I have an appointment with a surgeon in a couple weeks. It is probable that I will stop being a drain on the economy soon, and instead start putting money into the economy. You see how that works?

    When something breaks in your home, do you waggle your finger at it and tell it to start working again, or do you fix it? When someone in your family stumbles on hard times, do you lecture them or offer to help them with stuff?

    The government is not a separate entity from the people. It is of the people, by the people, for the people. It is the way in which we organize ourselves in order to help ourselves. When government is not doing that, it is broken

  • hidden_urchin

    Just sticking my head in to say that I’m glad to hear you’ve got insurance now and that I hope your health problems get taken care of.  Best wishes and good thoughts!

  • Ross Thompson

    Do you run your own household with 33% more spending than income, and how does that work out for you?

    In that situation, one might almost think about going to one’s boss and asking for a raise. And yet, for some reason, the Republican answer is to slash the government’s income still further. Why do you think that is?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

      Rather, the statement reflects the belief on the part of Republicans
    that the party’s values have universal appeal, and don’t need to be
    packaged and presented differently to different constituencies.

    I think I speak for every Liberal and Democrat in America when I say “Please just keep on thinking that.”

    As various people have already pointed out, what the Republicans SAY their values are, and what they actually seem to value are two very different things, and it’s not FREEDOM(tm) that the Republicans in Congress are currently threatening to crater the economy over, AGAIN, it’s trying to keep taxes on the rich from going BACK up to where they were when Clinton was President.  ([sarcasm]The horror![/sarcasm]

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     for some reason, the Republican answer is to slash the government’s income still further. Why do you think that is?

    The phrase ‘small enough to drown in a bathtub’  springs to mind for some reason.

  • Jeff

    “ Social Security is not a budget item and IS NOT PART OF THE DEFICIT. It’s paid for by payroll deductions invested in T-bills. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT. Medicare is paid for by payroll taxes. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.”

    PJ, you should bring this to the President’s attention immediately.  According to his FY13 budget submission, he is under the apparently mistaken impression that the $820B we are projected to spend on Social Security, and $628B we are projected to spend on Medicare, ARE part of the $3,656B in total outlays that the government will make in FY13, and he, apparently erroneously, subtracts that from the $2,902B in projected receipts to show a $901B deficit.  See for yourself:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/tables.pdf

    You need to let your President know that he is lying, or clueless, about how the federal budget works!

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    A little something for Jeff:  Kung-Fu Monkey:  I miss Republicans

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    When looking at the Social Security books on their own, the SS budget runs a surplus. So Congress takes that surplus and spends it on other stuff.

    The accounting necessary to do this artificially increases the size of the US federal debt, although for all practical purposes it’s just shuffling money around in coat pockets.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Disqus is still philosophically opposed to killfiles, right? So how come it looks like Jeff has killfiled me?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Because you scare him, I suppose.

  • Lori

    I suspect it’s because he can’t think of a (faux) clever response to you. It apparently isn’t your female user name because he answered me.

    So, congratulations! You’ve apparently won this round of “stump the winger”. I think that means you get a year’s supply of car wax.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Woot. I’d rather a set of tires, because I need tires and don’t know what to do with car wax except that it is probably external application only, but woot.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Wait, the prize is CAR wax?  I thought you said EAR wax.

    …I need to empty a barrel.  Be back in a bit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    You are allowed to ignore someone without the use of a killfile, though I’ll admit one would be great in this case.

    (Not because of you, of course, but for that one asshole who keeps posting 30 Youtube videos one-by-one and taking over entire threads.)

  • EllieMurasaki

    I emailed Fred about him. He hasn’t said anything yet today, has he? Maybe Fred actually banned him.

  • Jeff

    Good points Gotchaye, and I think we’re all hoping for the economic recovery to kick in to get the “receipts” column of the budget up; that would certainly mitigate many of the concerns about how to accommodate increasing levels of entitlement spending.  But even the president’s budget projects $600-700B out to FY22 at least, and that’s under the (dubious) assumption that Obamacare will be deficit-neutral or will actually reduce the deficit.  And again, my point with the deficit/entitlements was simply that wanting to restrain entitlement spending growth isn’t reflective of racism on the part of Republicans.