______________________________________________________
The Big Lie of the Day: Republicans Balance Federal Budgets
August 15th, 2012 @LOLGOP
The Truth: The last Republican president who ever balanced the budget was Dwight Eisenhower.
Between 1998 and 2000, President Bill Clinton’s Treasury Department paid off more than $360 billion in debt. As a result of 115 straight months of economic expansion that began after an increase in the top income tax rate — which was virulently opposed by the right — the huge deficits left by 12 years of Republican rule had been transformed into a surplus.
Within months after taking office in the narrowest victory of nearly any U.S. president—by only one vote in the Supreme Court—George W. Bush had begun to turn that surplus back into deficits that grew and grew, despite funding two wars on emergency supplemental bills that were not figured into the budget.
Vice-President Cheney laughed off the promises that the Bush tax breaks would pay for themselves and the budget would be balanced: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” But deficits do matter to Republicans…whenever there is a Democratic president.
Since they woke up from a coma on the day President Obama was elected, Republicans have pushed two Big Lies: The President is responsible for the deficit, which is nearly entirely the result of Bush-era choices that the Republicans refused to abandon, and the deficit is responsible for the poor economy.
In both instances, the opposite is true.
Using the deficit as a battering ram, the GOP pushed for the rapid adoption of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would ignore the true causes of the deficit—tax breaks, the wars and an unfunded Medicare expansion—and demand huge cuts to Medicaid, Pell Grants and every service the government provides.
Paul Ryan proposed a budget plan with these draconian measures yet impartial experts warn that his budget doesn’t balance for decades. The largest expenditure in the Ryan budget is interest on the national debt.
Eager to prove how conservative he is, Mitt Romney signed up for a balanced budget plan that works even faster than Ryan’s, by cutting even more government services. And he pledges to do it without asking rich Americans like himself to ever pay a nickel more in taxes.
Like the majority of Republicans in Congress, Romney has signed a pledge to never say aye to any new taxes. Forget asking the rich to contribute what they can. Under Romney’s plan they’ll pay even less. Of course, to do this Romney would have to demand that the working poor and the middle class pay up to $2000 a year more to make the math work.
And when does Mitt Romney’s budget balance? Don’t ask Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie (who also advised George W. Bush). Yesterday Gillespie told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “ Uh…Wolf, I’m not sure of that myself, actually. I’ll get that to you though and I’m sure it’s on our website.” Don’t count on it.
Why? Romney purposely released a budget that can’t be scored, and thus makes no serious projections. No one can say he isn’t a Republican now!
Republicans have long abandoned any impulse to open a real discussion about the federal budget in hopes of distorting the debate. They’re attacking cuts that eliminate wasteful spending in Medicare, while proposing trillions in cuts that would do real damage. They’re blaming deficit spending for a bad economy that only deficit spending can help us to escape. They’re promising to balance the budget with Paul Ryan’s smile and the magic of trickle down economics.
And how did that work out last time?
______________________________________________________
The Democrats’ Deadly Sin
“Envy is sadness at another’s good,” wrote Fulton Sheen in Victory Over Vice. “In our time, envy has taken on an economic form.”
What happens when an entire political party crafts its appeal and reelection strategy around envy? Sadly, the Democratic Party has been doing just that for a long time, and with renewed vigor under the presidency of Barack Obama.
President Obama demands that the rich “pay their fair share.” In fact, the top 1% of income earners in America pay 38% of all federal tax revenue (click here). The top 5% pay 59%. The top 10% pay 70%. The top 25% pay 86%. The top 50% pay 97.3%.
In other words, the rich are certainly paying their fair share. It is a statistical fact that they pay the vast share. The poorest Americans, conversely, pay literally nothing in income taxes.
But President Obama excoriates not only the rich for allegedly not paying enough, but lambastes Republicans who oppose higher income taxes that would simply continue to subsidize the federal government’s inability to control its reckless, out-of-control, downright immoral, pathological spending behavior.
Did I say pathological? You bet I did.
Did you know that from 1965-2009 the federal government never—not one time—cut annual spending? That’s right, not once—not even by one penny one single year over 44 years. If you don’t believe me, seeing this for yourself is as easy as Googling “historical tables deficit,” where one can view two sources: CBO historical tables (Congressional Budget Office)and OMB historical tables (Office of Management and Budget). These are the official sources for data on federal budgets. In the OMB link, look at Table 1.1, titled, “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789-2016.”
You’ll notice that once upon a time our nation’s political officials were capable of cutting spending and balancing a budget. It used to happen all the time, under both Democrat and Republican presidents—even under big-government progressives/liberals like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. That suddenly changed, however, in 1965, the start of LBJ’s Great Society. It was that watershed year when our federal government began an outright spending addiction.
To see the figures on a chart (again, click here) is an awakening. Take a close look: The annual rise in federal spending by your U.S. government is a steady, non-stop, unbroken, upward climb for over 40 years.
Apply this to any other walk of life. Do you know of a family or business or church or anything that has spent more money than it takes in for 44 consecutive years? Have you done that? If you have, then you’re reading this article from a prison cell.
From a Christian perspective, you are a bad steward. You are irresponsible. You are not living virtuously.
You are filled with vice. And yet, that is precisely the behavior of your federal government, which, worse still, is passing along this generational debt to your children and grandchildren and their grandchildren.
But who’s at fault? The Democrats and President Obama have an easy answer; it’s the envy-based answer: the rich.
Their class-based rhetoric continues undaunted, calling out the alleged true culprits for the nation’s economic/fiscal woes: corporate “fat cats,” “Wall Street,” “Big Oil,” private “jet owners,” and other possessors of wealth that Vladimir Lenin described as “reptiles.” The Democrats’ goal is to mobilize their masses with anger not at the federal government for obscene spending habits, but at the dastardly and undeserving “rich” for supposedly not paying enough to the U.S. Treasury.
When the newly elected Republican Congress protested the idea of raising taxes on the highest income earners to further subsidize our government’s spending addiction—mercifully trying to take away the needle or bottle—President Obama fumed. He called a bitter press conference, where he angrily derided “tax cuts for the wealthy” as the Republicans’ “Holy Grail.”
Unfortunately, this rhetoric has astonishing success among the Democratic Party faithful. Every time I write an article like this I brace myself as I click open my email box. It gets flooded with irate mom-and-pop Democrats filled with a consuming hatred at “rich” people, who they blame for their problems. It is sick to see, especially when you understand how this self-destructive mentality is being fostered by a political party.
And when the rich aren’t a sufficient enough demon, the Democratic Party seeks out another, with the Tea Party being the latest manifestation. I recently posted here a piece on Vice President Joe Biden reportedly referring to Tea Party members as “terrorists.” To hear Democrats using such incendiary language, and around the time of the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001, is breathtaking. But even more depressing was the reaction by Democrats’ followers, who immediately followed suit. One reader of my post at Catholic Exchange did just that, writing:
The Tea Party is responsible for our country’s credit rating being downgraded because they are unwilling to offer a solution to our current budget problems. They can’t offer a plan to cut enough money to balance our budget, and they won’t compromise on any tax increases to add revenue. Now we are faced with poor credit that is going to cost taxpayers even more money, making the already terrible situation even worse. They in fact are terrorists. They are doing everything they can to destroy America.When I read this, I felt truly hopeless. This nation has been attacked by terrorists. This nation knows what terrorism looks like—or so I had thought.
Needless to say, it isn’t the Tea Party or even real terrorists who have destroyed our budget and economy; it is the people in the federal government who from 1965-2009 could not manage to cut annual spending by literally even one penny one year. Then, on top of that, they pumped and printed and borrowed another $800 billion for a 2009 “stimulus” package that didn’t stimulate—and must be paid back. And guess what?
They seek hundreds of billions more for the same failed purpose.
Leave it to Democrats to find a way to corral the Tea Party movement into their class-warfare campaign, and with accusations of “terrorism” no less.
It is poisonous, destined to yield the bitterest fruit.
“We must teach our children to hate,” Vladimir Lenin instructed his education commissars. The Bolshevik godfather declared that hatred was not only “the basis of communism” but “the basis of every socialist and Communist movement.”
Class envy has been a defining staple of the political Left for centuries. It brings out the worst in people.
Unfortunately, we have a political party that deems it a great utility.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press) and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
______________________________________________________
Ryan Family Fortune Built on Public Works Projects That Romney Campaign Mocks
Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand.
When Paul Ryan took to the stage in Mooresville, North Carolina, as Mitt Romney’s running mate, he attacked President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark about the role of government in supporting private innovation. But while Republicans have been clamoring to make this election a false dichotomy between the private sector and the public sector, Paul Ryan — heir to a private fortune made by building public highways — is a gaping pothole in that plan. Paul Ryan is a living, breathing GOP example of how public infrastructure and private entrepreneurship work hand-in-hand.
Viewpoints : Why is faith falling in the US?
Posted by David Virtue
Thousands attended an atheism rally in Washington DC this MarchA new poll suggests that atheism is on the rise in the US, while those who consider themselves religious has dropped. What's the cause? Two writers debate.
Recently, researchers conducting a WIN-Gallup International poll about religion surveyed people from 57 countries. The poll suggests that in the US, since 2005:
* the number of people who consider themselves religious has dropped from 73% to 60%
* those who declare themselves atheists have risen from 1% to 5% What's behind the changing numbers? Is the cause churches that chase modern trends at the expense of core beliefs? Or are those who have always been ambivalent about religion now less likely to identify as Christian? We asked two writers for their take.
Rod Dreher: Progressive churches fuel apathy
As a practicing Christian of the Hitchens sort (Peter, the good one), I welcome the news that more Americans are willing to identify as atheists. At least that clarifies matters. I respect honest atheists more than I do many on my own side, for the same reason Jesus of Nazareth said to the tepid Laodicean church: "because you are lukewarm - neither hot nor cold - I am about to spit you out of my mouth".
About the contributors
* Rod Dreher is a senior editor at the American Conservative. He is the author of Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots. Dreher lives in Louisiana with his family.
* David Ellis Dickerson is also the author of House of Cards: The True Story of How a 26-Year-Old Fundamentalist Virgin Learned about Life, Love, and Sex by Writing Greeting Cards. He has also contributed to the Atlantic and This American Life. He lives in Tucson, AZ.
Take this summer's General Convention of the Episcopal Church, the triennial gathering of the main American branch of the Anglican Communion.
The church's legislative body approved a liturgy for same-sex unions and removed impediments for transgendered people to serve as priests.
During the debate on transgender clerics, one bishop said the proposal, if adopted, would bring about theological confusion. Another rose to say that confusion is precisely why the measure should pass. As it did, easily. At a special communion service after the victories, a lesbian bishop of the church recited an offering prayer thanking the "Spirit of Life" for "disordering our boundaries", and asking the non-specific, non-patriarchal spectre "to feel your laughter".
Laughter indeed - but not the sort the liberal bishop was looking for, I fear. This is not to make fun of the dignity of sexual minorities, but rather to marvel at the way these
Episcopal elites run like lemmings off the cliffs of progressive extremes.
Like Wile E Coyote of the old Warner Brothers cartoons, one of these days the bishops are going to look down and see that there is no ground beneath their feet.
"America's postmodern religious future would appear to belong to theological slackers who believe in a vague deity, who makes no demands and only provides psychological comfort. Who needs that mush?"
They are nearly there already. The Episcopal Church, like all of America's mainline Protestant denominations, is in steep decline, and has been for decades.
Yet as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat laments, progressive Christians and secular media sympathisers are unable to admit that that their willingness to radically redefine the faith is helping drive liberal Christianity to extinction.
Douthat points out that the media freak-out over the Vatican's chastising liberal American nuns conveniently ignored the complete collapse in female vocations. Over 90% of US nuns are 60 or older. Conservative women's religious orders are the only ones growing.
Conservative US churches may be doing better, but can't gloat. According to exhaustive social science data analysed by Robert Putnam of Harvard and David Campbell of Notre Dame, all organised American religion is in demographic decline.
So, good news for atheism? Not really. Putnam and Campbell, writing in their much-praised 2010 book American Grace, found that atheism continues to be confined to a relatively tiny population, disproportionately concentrated in academia and media.
The blockbuster growth in American religion is happening among a category the authors dub the "Nones" - people who claim no religious affiliation, but most of whom believe in God. This is the "spiritual but not religious" crowd. About 17% of America belongs to their number, three percentage points higher than mainline Protestantism.
But the Nones number is deceptively low, understating the generational wave now breaking upon the US religious landscape. Among young adults aged 18-29, 30% are Nones, and their numbers are rapidly rising.
Why?
According to the research, the young are leaving conservative churches because they disagree with traditional views on homosexuality. They chafe at those churches' association with the Republican Party. They're not joining liberal churches, the ones that make a big deal out of welcoming and affirming gays. Instead, young adults increasingly see no reason to go to church at all.
A mourner attends a funeral service in Mt Vernon, New York, for the noted restaurateur Sylvia Woods This rapid and widespread falling away of the young from institutional Christianity is the first harvest of what sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton dub "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism".
According to Smith's research, MTD is the default religion of nearly all American young people, both Christian and non-Christian, who are a generation of theological illiterates (Mormon youth are a fascinating exception).
MTD teaches that God exists and wants us to be nice, and that happiness is the point of life. In MTD, God, who is "something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist", doesn't have to be involved in one's life unless one needs something.
It's the perfect pseudo-religion for an individualist, consumerist, prosperous culture. You can see why a generation raised on MTD would have no interest in traditional religion, with its truth claims and strictures.
If God expects nothing of you but to be nice and to be happy, why roll out of bed on Sunday morning, even for the most progressive of liturgies?
America's postmodern religious future, then, would appear to belong to theological slackers who believe in a vague deity who makes no demands, and only provides psychological comfort. Who needs that mush? At least atheists have the courage of their lack of religious convictions. The thing is, if America's historic religion had been about therapeutic self-love and bourgeois bedlam instead of rigour, repentance and reform, neither the 19th-century abolitionists nor the 20th-century civil rights marchers would have had a thing to go on.
At some point, the Nones may discover that neither MTD nor atheism can give them the otherworldly hope they need to endure and to triumph over true suffering.
Should that come-to-Jesus moment happen, there will be some churches, diminished, yes, but still extant, left to take in the shipwrecked souls.
Christian churches that traded their faith inheritance for a pot of progressive message will not be among them.
David Ellis Dickerson: Conservative churches are losing the moral high ground
Atheism in America has quintupled since 2005. Or, to put it another way, it rose 400%. Seven years ago, atheists were barely a blip.
But more significant than the atheist numbers is the 13% drop in people identifying as "religious." Even if some of these form the new atheists, that still leaves at least 9% who have left their religious identity entirely.
Many of these respondents are presumably the religious equivalent of undecided voters; the mushy middle that shrugs at questions like this. But now they say, "I guess I'm no religion" when seven years ago they said "I guess I'm Christian".
It's a large shift, but it's probably not a passionate one. So what caused these folks to bother changing their minds at all?
Some young Christians argue that all marriage, including gay marriage, is a conservative principle Although this drop in religious identity comes during the spread of "New Atheism" in the wake of bestselling books by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others, attributing this change to those works seems unlikely.
Nothing has happened in the last seven years to make the philosophical arguments for God any more or less plausible.
What's more, as a person who has read Harris and Dawkins-who both treat saying grace at dinner as if it were morally adjacent to slapping Galileo-you can hardly claim that the New Atheists have mounted an unusually empathetic charm offensive.
I give them credit for a 1% atheism bump, max. Maybe two. So what else happened? It can't be the Catholic abuse scandal, because that started over seven years ago, and it's not just Catholic churches losing members. It's not Muslim terrorism, because hostility to radical Muslims is often more a reason to cling defensively to Christianity than it is a reason to reject all religion entirely.
And as much as my liberal friends might want to tell themselves otherwise, it can't be that people suddenly woke and realized the religious right wants to clamp down on sex, birth control and lady parts in general, as if this were some surprise tactic that only liberals were ever wise to. Heck, that's been part of the public platform of the religious right since the Moral Majority, and people on those platforms continue to get elected to Congress. The real issue is homosexuality.
"The conservative Christian church, though it may still own the label "religion", no longer owns public morality along with it."
Consider: In the early 2000s, the Barna Group-an evangelical survey organisation that has long tracked American attitudes toward religion-discovered that, almost overnight, the reputation of evangelicals had cratered.
For the first time in Barna's polling history, Americans were more likely to view Christians negatively than positively. This attitude was especially marked in Americans aged 16-29, and so David Kinnaman, now the president of Barna, spent the next three years examining why.
When he asked these younger people what words described evangelicals, the number one answer was "anti-homosexual," at 91%. (You can see the full survey results in his book, unchristian).
Evangelicals were also called judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), too involved with politics (75%) and out of touch (72%), but any of these critiques could have been-and have been-levelled by Christians' enemies since at least the 1970s.
Only our attitudes toward homosexuality have actually changed since 2005, and that change tracks with younger respondents. So does loss of religious identity. I'm no pollster, but this does not seem coincidental.
I speak from personal experience here, too. I was raised a devout evangelical, and studied to be a pastor.
But although scholarly readings of the Bible troubled me, and although I was startled that many of my fellow students weren't Christians but still seemed like moral people, I remained a devout conservative.
Global findings
* Worldwide, 59% of those polled consider themselves religious; 23% consider themselves non-religious and 13% say they are atheists
* Top three atheist countries: China: 47%, Japan: 31%, Czech Republic: 30%
* Top four religious countries: Ghana 96%, Nigeria 93%, Armenia and Fiji, 92%
* 82% of Hindus said they were religious, compared to 81% of Christians, 71% of Muslims and 38% of Jews
Source: WIN-Gallup International 'Religiosity and Atheism Index' It was only when three of my friends came out of the closet in one month that I was forced to look at the consequences of my theology. It was The Literal Bible As I Understood It v My Friends, and my friends won. Historically, friends always win. When Republicans have spoken in favour of gay rights they have always talked about their love for family and friends, and their unwillingness to yank happiness away from others.
That's the unanswerable argument: Why would God be against good people loving each other? If that's what religion is, we can do better.
This is why it's good news that mushy-middle people are saying "I'm no religion" in response to poll questions. Not because anyone's behaviour has actually changed-I doubt these folks were going to church anyway, even when they called themselves merely "religious" in 2005-but because it means that "no religion" is now the safe neutral thing to say.
It means that the conservative Christian church, though it may still own the label "religion", no longer owns public morality along with it.
This gives everyone else-other Christians, other religions, and even atheists like me-room at the conference table.
And it also means that evangelicals will have to change if they plan to stay popular enough to convert people, as they've always striven for.
For the near future, and if it can manage to, the conservative church is going to have to listen, humbly, to homosexuals and atheists who are both fresh out of the closet. Because on this issue, those are the groups that currently have the moral high ground. If evangelicals don't change, their numbers will continue to fall.
______________________________________________________
World War II Veteran Ralph Maxwell says 4 More Years!
______________________________________________________
The Breathtaking Hypocrisy of Paul Ryan
______________________________________________________
This Is What We Are Facing Your body is currently under direct assault. This is what we are facing, and it is up to you to make the difference.
Full article with a number of links here: http://naturalsociety.com/this-is-what-we-are-facing-video/
Drug deaths and medical accidents specifically: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_02.htm
______________________________________________________
Almost all job losses since 2010 is in Republican held states
http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/sites/all/files/GOPProjectSlashingPublicWorkforce.pdf
______________________________________________________
Kentucky GOP Outraged Colleges Want Students to Know Things
by Rich Abdill
Kentucky Republicans passed education legislation in 2009 that made it easier to compare the state’s students to other states. Now they’re very upset that the results came back Stupid.ACT, the state’s testing company, interviews professors to figure out the things most important to student readiness for college, which sounds like a smart thing to do. Unfortunately, those professors have bad news: If you want students to do well in biology classes, they have to know about evolution.
Rather predictably, the Kentucky GOP is madder than a plumber in a Chipotle.
“I think we are very committed to being able to take Kentucky students and put them on a report card beside students across the nation,” said Republican Sen. David Givens. “We’re simply saying to the ACT people we don’t want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students’ ability to do critical thinking.”
Yes! Let’s teach students about how Chuck E. Cheese made the Earth out of popsicle sticks three years ago. We don’t want to damage them.
It gets even better. From the Lexington Herald-Leader:
Givens said he asked the ACT representatives about possibly returning to a test personalized for Kentucky, but he was told that option was very expensive and time-consuming.Aw, come on, Smart People. Is that so unreasonable? All Kentucky wants is national guidelines that exempt the state from knowing science, because the best way to prepare students for college classes is obviously to ignore the advice of the people teaching them. Don’t worry, they have a totally real and responsible argument:
“The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up,” [Rep. Ben] Waide said. “My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny.”See? It’s simple — evolution isn’t real. Not like Jesus! Have you even HEARD of the scientific method, biologists? It’s a little thing where you get evidence for a thing, and continue testing that thing, except in cases where an invisible man made the heavens and the earth, then you have to believe it and definitely teach it as science and DON’T YOU BE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, HEATHEN.
What say you, Vincent Cassone, chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department?
“The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research.”
Oh.
“There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised.”
Wait wait wait. Are you saying… are you saying we have more evidence for evolution than for gravity? ARE YOU SAYING WE DON’T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR GRAVITY?
Somebody get Kentucky on the phone. It’s about to float away. [Lexington Herald-Leader]
______________________________________________________
* another paranoiac-infected conspiracy-everywhere tinged poster. Christ! I'm struggling to find any reasonable and facts-based conservative writer on the net outside of Fox cabal and fat fuck Limbaugh followers.
The Scarecrow of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Posted by Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog
It is not completely impossible that in a moment of electoral desperation, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr will be called into a private meeting with Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod and told that it's time for him to announce that he wants to spend more time with his family. But it's not very likely.
The chief function of a Vice President is making the President look good and by that measure Joe Biden is one of the best vice presidents who ever lived. The rule of thumb is that the more incompetent the man at the top is, the more of a buffoon the man just below him needs to be to make him look good. And again Biden does this job brilliantly.
James Monroe put as many political rivals in his cabinet as possible, but Barack Hussein Obama and the people around him are too insecure and paranoid to do such a thing. Monroe might have presided over the Era of Good Feeling, but the age of O is the Era of Bad Feelings. Hillary Clinton was never going to be on the ticket. Even giving her the Secretary of State position would never have been an option if it had not been a matter of pure survival, with the Obamas terrified of losing moderate Democrats to McCain.
Joe Biden, never a serious candidate, was the perfect match for Obama. A dumb old white man, to confirm all the dirty impulses of the left, while mockingly giving mainstream Democrats someone they could relate to. Biden's gaffes aren't an embarrassment, they are the whole point, signaling the end of the old American era of leadership. Their implicit message is that you can choose a McCain or Biden, another old white man, or the savvy multicultural representative of a new generation that looks like the America of 2050.
Obama and Biden are both symbols of the Post-American America. Biden represents the outgoing American administration and Obama represents the incoming Post-American administration. It is vital to make the American administration look weak, foolish and useless so as to affirm the right of the Post-American administration to seize power from it.
Biden's ego has made it impossible for him to understand the uses he has been put to. And that is part of the joke. Joe Biden wasn't selected despite his penchant for saying stupid things in public. He was selected because of it. He is there to project incompetence in order to make Obama look better. He is there to make the idea of white male leadership look like a joke. That is his one and only job and he has succeeded at it.
Biden is the successor of every dumb white male father figure on TV gawping at the screen, tumbling over chairs and down the stairs, scratching his head cluelessly at the wiser new generation around him. He is every man in a commercial who can't figure out how to start a car, make coffee or clean the house until his wife or a helpful minority figure shows up and explains it to him.
Doofus Dad is no longer just unable to perform simple tasks in a commercial, rubbing his eyes to the sound of canned laughter. He is the Vice President of the United States who was chosen to live up to that calculatingly manufactured stereotype. And he is rubbing his eyes and saying stupid things to the sound of canned laughter at press conferences.
No halfway responsible man would have deliberately chosen an idiot as his potential replacement. But an administration that has done the things to America that this one has done is not in any way responsible. If you step into Obama's head for a moment, you realize that he does not care at all what happens if he should die. A man who can't be bothered to take care of his own extended family is not likely to care one way or another what happens to a country of several hundred million, most of whom are not even related to him.
Obama truly is a post-racial candidate. His tribalism is a feint. While African-Americans saw him as one of theirs, he has never seen himself that way. His racial identity is as much a scam as anything else about him. Obama has done as much for African-Americans as he has for his half-brother who is calling strangers to help pay his medical bills. Obama dispenses group privileges only when it suits his needs. He exploits accusations of racism, but race means very little to him. Racial identity, like national identity, is a pose that he adopts on the appropriate occasions.
The post-racialism of Obama is the reverse of Martin Luther King's invocation of a society that has transcended race. Obama privileges race over character as a means of invoking guilt and group solidarity. He does not care about all Americans in a way that transcends race, nor does he care about one race exclusively. He cares about no one at all. If he appears to have any warm feelings for a particular group, they seem to be limited to the Muslims of his childhood who helped raise him.
There is nothing reassuring or transcendent about Obama's post-racialism. Like his post-nationalism, it is a symptom of a man who belongs nowhere but who can do his best to pass everywhere by appropriating identities and symbols as if they were currencies to be traded on an international trip. A man such as this is adept at speaking on more than one level, at sending coded messages that say different things to different people in a single word.
To moderate liberals, the selection of Biden sends a message that race has finally been transcended through the hard work of men and women like them. To the left, the message is that the old patriarchy is on the way out and is about to be replaced by a multicultural people's leadership that knows what a ridiculous joke the old white male power structure is. The left is not at all troubled when Republicans ridicule Biden. They chuckle because Republicans aren't in on the joke. Biden is meant to be them. They are Biden.
The left harbors its greatest contempt, not for Republicans, but for liberals. "I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy/I hope every colored boy becomes a star/But don't talk about revolution/That's going a little bit too far," Phil Ochs sang mockingly. "Love me, love me, I'm a liberal." Obama's people are singing Phil Ochs' song and displaying the traditional contempt for all the parts of the Democratic Party that aren't as committed to revolution as they are.
Biden is a joke because the Democratic Party is a joke. He represents what the left sees as the flaws of the Democratic Party and liberalism, the old white males who wanted slow reforms and gradual change instead of abrupt revolution. Obama's people could have chosen a more credible figure who would have provided useful cover, but instead they couldn't hold back their contempt.
That arrogance and contempt are the greatest flaws of the men and women looking down at the world from the capital city of the enemy nation that they have finally seized. They could replace Biden, they should replace Biden, but they probably won't. Their revolutionary ideals are fueled by their egotism. They want to overthrow everything not because they care about everyone, as they claim to, but because they truly don't care about anyone at all. Not only don't they care, but they feel nothing but contempt for the people looking up at them, pleading for jobs or tax relief. And it shows.
To the left race is a means to an end, it is not the end. Its collectivism requires enlisting individual groups dissatisfied with the system to help overthrow it in a coalition whose ultimate aims do not serve the needs of any of the individual groups. The racial identity of millions of African-Americans is a tool, like the former Senator from Delaware who somewhere beneath his hairpiece, past nerves deadened by Botox injections, harbors dreams of inheriting the job in 2016.
Biden still does not understand what he is. He is a fellow traveler, a dupe, a scarecrow of the old white male liberal establishment hung up over a cornfield to attract unknowing liberals while serving as a figure of fun to the left. And despite his corruption and arrogance, there is something sad and pathetic in the spectacle of a hollow man with capped teeth set in a grin making a fool of himself for the amusement of the Post-American crowd. A crowd that he thinks are laughing with him, when they are actually laughing at him.
______________________________________________________
Why Fewer Americans Are Living Paycheck to Paycheck
By: Chad Brooks
The number of Americans relying on their next paycheck to make ends meet continues to drop, with research showing it's at its lowest level since the recession began. Getty Images |
The study by CareerBuilder revealed that 40 percent of workers always, or usually, live paycheck to paycheck, continuing a downward trend from a high of 46 percent during the early days of the financial crisis in 2008. Just 23 percent of workers never rely on their next payday to make ends meet.
Consistent with past studies, women are more likely than men to live paycheck to paycheck, with one- quarter of female workers having missed at least one monthly bill payment in the past month, compared to 17 percent of men.
Overall, the study found that employees between 45 and 54 years old are the most likely to rely on each paycheck, with those over 55 the least likely to live payday to payday.
"Making ends meet remains a challenge for millions of households, but the situation has improved for workers who've grown more confident with their job security or who've taken steps to pay down debt and save more," said Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder. "Seventy-two percent of workers report they are more fiscally responsible since the end of the recession, and as the labor market continues to improve, we expect more workers will again be able to spend in ways that will drive the economy forward."
One of the ways employees have put themselves in a better financial situation is by cutting down on leisure expenses. However, the research found that there were a few things Americans are unwilling to forgo.
Nearly 60 percent of the employees surveyed said they are unwilling to stop paying for their Internet connection, regardless of their financial situation. Other things they refuse to give up include expenses related to driving and their pets, as well as mobile phones and cable television.
The study was based on surveys of more than 3,800 full-time employees.
______________________________________________________
Electoral College Prediction Model Points To A Mitt Romney Win In 2012
The Huffington Post | By Matt FernerTwo University of Colorado professors, one from Boulder and one from Denver, have put together an Electoral College forecast model to predict who will win the 2012 presidential election and the result is bad news for Barack Obama. The model points to a Mitt Romney victory in 2012.
Ken Bickers from CU-Boulder and Michael Berry from CU-Denver, the two political science professors who devised the prediction model, say that it has correctly forecast every winner of the electoral race since 1980.
"Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble," Bickers said in a press statement.
To predict the race's outcome, the model uses economic indicators from all 50 states and it shows 320 electoral votes for Romney and 218 for Obama, according to The Associated Press. The model also suggests that Romney will win every state currently considered a swing state which includes Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Colorado.
The professors' model shows a very different picture than what current data suggests. Currently, The Huffington Post's Election Dashboard shows Obama with 257 electoral votes to Romney's 191 with only six "tossup" states including: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.
Berry cautions that just because the model has worked in the past, doesn't mean it will work this time. "As scholars and pundits well know, each election has unique elements that could lead one or more states to behave in ways in a particular election that the model is unable to correctly predict," Berry said in a statement. Some of those factors include the timeframe of the current economic data used in the study (the data used was taken five months before the November election, but Berry and Bickers plan to update it with more current data come September) as well as tight races. States that are very close to a 50-50 split, the authors warn, can fall in an unexpected direction.
According to current data from The Huffington Post Election Dashboard, there are at least 13 states that are either dead heats or within a handful of percentage points in either direction.
Currently HuffPost's Pollster, tracking 403 national polls, estimates Obama leading the tight race nationally with 46.3 percent to Romney's 45.2 percent.
This kind of Electoral College model developed by the Bickers and Berry is the only only one of its kind to include more than one state-level measure of economic conditions -- both national unemployment rates as well as per capita income, according to a press release about the study from University of Colorado. Research suggested that voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.
"The apparent advantage of being a Democratic candidate and holding the White House disappears when the national unemployment rate hits 5.6 percent," Berry said. To which Bickers added, "The incumbency advantage enjoyed by President Obama, though statistically significant, is not great enough to offset high rates of unemployment currently experienced in many of the states."
______________________________________________________
Explicit Violence
In a bar, with friends, listening to a man I’ve admired for years saying this: “Enough with the sob stories, ladies. We get it. If I hear one more story about some fucked up sad violent shit that happened to you, I’m going to walk. You win! You win the sad shit happened to me award! On behalf of my gender, I decree: We suck!” Laughter. The clinking of glasses. Again the secret crack in my heart. Stop telling.
The first time I saw my father’s specific sadistic brutality manifest in physical terms, I was four. My sister was flopped across his lap, barebottom. He hit her thirteen times with his leather belt. I counted. That’s all I was old enough to do. It took a very long time. She was twelve and had the beginning of boobs. I was in the bedroom down the hall, peeking out from a faithlessly thin line through my barely open bedroom door. The first two great thwacks left red welts across her ass. I couldn’t keep watching, but I couldn’t move or breathe, either. I closed my eyes. I drew on the wall by my door with an oversized purple crayon — large aimless circles and scribbles. Not the sound of the belt—but her soundlessness is what shattered me. Still.
The second time I saw my father’s naked brutality he came at my mother – I mean the second time I physically witnessed my father looking more animal than man, his embodied rage – he threw a coffee mug at her head. Hard. He once tried out for the Cleveland Indians as a pitcher. That hard. He missed, and the mug punched a hole through the wall in the kitchen. My sister was long gone—the escape of college. Afterward, there was dead silence in the kitchen. I know because I held my breath. Even air molecules seemed to still. I’d recently written a fifth grade school report on hurricanes. It felt like we were in the eye.
My father never struck my mother. She told me it was because she was a cripple. My mother was born with one of her legs six inches shorter than the other. She said, “He wouldn’t dare hit me,” the lilt of a southern drawl and vodka in her never-went-to-college voice, some kind of messed up trust in her too blue eyes. Instead, he molested his daughters.
Our legs were perfect.
Baseball.
Purple crayon.
When I was sixteen a boy older than me asked me out on a date. I was as sixteen as a girl could be. Barely able to breathe with the incomprehensibility of my own body. The heat and pulse and lurch. When he drove me home, and parked outside my house, we kissed. Because I was stupid and sixteen I thought we were alone. I got out of the car, and leaned back in through his open driver’s side window to kiss him some more, my mouth, his mouth, wet heat and tongue of youth sliding into youth, and my father, who was standing behind me there in the dark, grabbed me by the ear and dragged me all the way back to the house. My ear became more than red and hot. Then ringing. Then pain. I thought he would pull my ear off. Briefly, I saw the boy step out of his car—did he mean to save me? I shook my head wordlessly, no. Or maybe it was just in my eyes through the dark. No. He got back in his car.
That night my father hit me with language. Slut. Over and over again.
Purple Crayon.
Belt.
The second time I was molested I was twelve. I was on an out-of-state swimming trip with my swim team. Nebraska. Even now, I understand, the hormonal chaos of all of us half-naked in the pool every day of our lives, six to eight a.m., four to six p.m. pushing our corporeal truths up and out—I understand how hard it was for our bodies to find forms for things. A seventeen year old boy named Robert asked me to come sit by him on the plane and share his Walkman earphones—to hear a song he liked. He had one in his ear and he put the other in my ear. The song was “Baker Street” by Gerry Rafferty. As I leaned in closely, he reached up underneath my tank top and fondled my barely there tits. I kept stealing glances at the airplane barf bag. But I didn’t move. I remember being terrified to move. Not the terror of violence. I didn’t think he’d hurt me. It was the terror of my own body. My nipples responding to this thing that made me want to throw up. Or just die there in the seat of the airplane. Crashing, crashing. Wishing for it. “When you wake up it’s a new morning/ The sun is shining, it’s a new morning/ You’re going, you’re going home.”
To this day if I hear “Baker Street,” which is mercifully almost never, I can vomit.
To this day, I would rather have taken ten plane trips sitting next to Robert than live with my father growing up.
Baseball.
Coffee mug.
Walkman.
Barf bag.
The first time a man came at me with a fist I was eighteen. I passed out. Not from his fist though. I’d passed out drunk. When I woke up all my clothes were on the floor, my legs were spread eagle on his bed, and I was wet and sticky and sore between them. There was a bruise between my shoulder and my breast. He was snoring, asleep back in bed. I stood up and watched him sleep. I remember thinking he is beautiful. He had long blonde feathered hair and an astonishingly fit body. He did Karate. Competitively. In fact his power and beauty were what made me go home with him from the bar. I mean I went out of my way to catch his eye, wag my ass, throw my huge mane of blonde lioness hair around. I pretended I didn’t know how to play pool—which my father had taught me when I was ten—so he could “teach” me. He had blue eyes. Standing there watching him sleep, my legs shaking some, I thought, he is beautiful, and I am not, I am stupid, and drunk, and I deserve this and more.
Then I called my roommate from college at 3:00 A.M. and she and her boyfriend came to get me. I couldn’t find my underwear. I waited for them in the dark and cold morning on the front lawn. He came out before they got to me and punched me in the jaw—not hard enough to call the cops, not soft enough to keep my ear from aching, saying, “You tell anyone you crazy little bitch, I’ll find you.” He smiled. He handed me my underwear.
I waited for my roommate to pick me up. I heard a dog bark. I smelled cow shit from Lubbock stockyards. I picked at a scab on my arm like a kid. You’re no victim if you are a drunk ass slut. I didn’t cry. I swallowed it whole.
I didn’t tell anyone. In fact, later that year? I went home with him again. On purpose.
Purple crayon.
Coffee mug.
Vodka.
Underwear.
The second time a man hit me I was in college. The man was a poet. A pacifist. A hippie. Somehow I believed things like that could matter. But he had a hair trigger rage in him. His father had been career military and hit him all through boyhood. The rage in him sat like the crouch of dead dreams in his fingers. Poems came out. And that shot to the bridge of my nose. Probably that’s what drew me to him. It was familiar.
Twice in my life I’ve been homeless, both times the result of emotional trauma. Both times I woke up under overpasses with no pants or underwear, vomit everywhere, a throbbing pain between my legs extending to my asshole. I’m assuming I was raped. But where do you put the story of rape when there’s no man to blame? I put it the only place I knew how to. I put it back into my body.
Belt.
Barf bag.
Baseball.
Purple Crayon.
I’m trying to tell you something here, but it’s starting to sound like what I’m saying is that I deserved these violences. Let me be clear. I did not. No one does. Ever. But when women tell how it is for them, when they self narrate their ordinary lives, it’s instantly sucked up by the culture—there’s already a place waiting for the story. A place where the story gets annulled. It’s 2012 and I’m still reading about what the girl or woman was wearing that night. Or how she should hold aspirin between her legs. Or how she shouldn’t say the word “vagina” on the floor of congress. Or how a friend at a bar wants the sob stories to end. What I’m trying to tell you is that violence against girls and women is in every move we make, whether it is big violence or small, explicit or hidden behind the word father. Priest. Lover. Teacher. Coach. Friend. I’m trying to explain how you can be a girl and a woman and travel through male violence like it’s part of what living a life means. Getting into or out of a car. A plane. Going through a door to your own home. A church. School. Pool. It can seem normal. It can seem like just the way things are.
To be honest, the first reason I understand the complexities of male violence against girls and women is that I went to college and read a shit ton of books—and even that wasn’t enough education—I went to graduate school, where finally, finally, the books that I read and the films that I watched and the art that I experienced and the teachers that I had showed me just how not normal male violence against girls and women—or boys and men—is. Ever. And yet at the same time, the more conscious I became, the more I also understood that the pervasiveness of that violence has saturated the entire culture. It’s both omnipresent, and unbelievably invisible in its dispersed and sanctioned forms. So many times the cult of good citizenship covering over the atrocities of girls and boys. Mothers who go numb. Counselors who ask the wrong questions. Coaches and priests and teachers whose desires are costumed and sanctified by their authority. Neighbors who go blind and deaf. Paying bills. Drinking lattes.
The second reason I understand is that I am alive. Still. Differently.
It wasn’t that I did not understand the violences against me were wrong. I did. Even at three years of age. It was that I thought I deserved it, and possibly worse: that deserving it, I could withstand it. Mightily. Heroically. You see? As a righteously indignant defense. I could take it. As good as if I was some body’s son. It was a choice.
When my father raised his hand to me in our garage at eighteen, I said, “Do it.”
When the poet punched me in the nose in my pick-up truck at a stop light, I said, “Get the fuck out of my car or I will kill you.” And I meant it.
I’m telling you this because I know I’m not the only one who came of age like this. Up and through male violence. I’m telling you because there are all the things that need to be done “out there” to stop it. But then there are also all the things that needed to be done in me. To stop it.
Listen, these are not the sad stories. Worse things happened to me. Those aren’t the sad stories either. These stories don’t carry the pathos to signify culturally in my culture. These stories I’m telling you are commonplace. That’s the point. They just happen and you live them and as you go you have to decide who you want to be.
Victim.
Slut.
Bitch.
Crayon.
Baseball.
Belt.
When I was thirteen, in Jr. High, my best friend Emory was beaten and sodomized in the boy’s locker room at school by some sadistic members of the football team. Because he was gay. Or at least that’s what they were aiming at. In truth, Emory had not yet finished discovering his own sexual self. Like my sister, Emory suffered rectal damage the rest of his life. They used a baseball bat. Emory says, I’ll never be in any kind of relationship. Emory says, my chance at being with anyone, a family, feeling OK, died that day. Emory was also a swimmer, and so after swim practice, sometimes we’d sit in the parking lot waiting for our moms to pick us up and drink vodka from a flask an older girl swimmer had bequeathed to me. I never knew what to say about what happened. I didn’t even understand it until we were adults. I’m only glad we are still in contact – writing. The tether of words when the world isn’t safe like it was supposed to be.
The boys who committed this brutality were never charged. Emory couldn’t bring himself to tell anyone, and anyhow, at that time, there were no laws on the books to protect us anyway. Also, he was instructed by his father’s lawyer that the term “rape” was not available to him in this situation.
Baseball.
Purple crayon.
Barf bag.
I’m a writer. It’s all I really know how to do, besides being a wife and mother. I consider myself a success story. Because I am alive I mean, and because I think writing and books and art are the reason. As a writer, I’m not so sure I see much difference in the storylines for women and girls who enter the field. I see that some art is rewarded for being “universal,” and it is written by men. Other art is deemed confessional. Or sentimental. Or too subjective. And it is written by women. I see that straight white men are published in prestigious venues more often than women. I see that women are told by editors and agents and publishers to take explicitly sexual or violent or subjective language out of their work unless they can bend the language toward the culture in a way that will sell. These are gendered terms, laden with a force as real as my father’s. I write my heart out. I do. For better or worse. I write my heart out because my heart, well, she was almost taken from me. Every year of my life until now. It’s something I can “do.” A verb. Something that has at least a chance of interrupting another girl or boy’s story with other options. Write. Make art. Find others. It’s a choice.
Listen, I know this is a bit of a dreary story. But whenever I get told that, by friends, or agents, or editors, or publishers, I think, if this dreary story is hard for you to live with, how are we supposed to live with you?
When my father was thirty, he had all of his teeth pulled. Just bad genes with regard to teeth, I guess. Early dentures. When he came home from the surgery he turned all the living room lights off, became part of the couch, and turned the television on. It was a horrible week waiting for his mouth to heal. I don’t know how to say it—things went too dark and horribly submerged. If my mother or I spoke, he yelled, but we could barely understand him. Laughter and crying kept getting caught and confused in my throat. My mother made soup. Mashed potatoes. Ice cream. I drew on the walls in my room. It was like his rage had gone underground, under the beds, the house, the dirt. But we could feel it, pulsing. Pervading everything.
They sent his teeth home with him. I never understood that. I just know I stole one. A molar. Off white as a baseball and like a wrong pearl. I have it still.
Sometimes I think about the children that didn’t come out of me. Four. Three of them were zygotes. The zygotes were sucked out of me in what can best be described as a process involving a hoover upright old-school vacuum. That’s what it always looked like to me. Though medical technology has advanced since I was in my teens and twenties. And yet it’s 2012 and I keep reading about ideas like forced sonograms where the newly or barely pregnant woman is made to watch. I saw a congressman interviewed who actually said, “Well, no one can really be made to ‘watch,’ the woman could just close her eyes.’” While a camera wand is shoved up her. It makes me think of the film A Clockwork Orange. It makes me think how yes we are forced to watch, every day of our lives, we are forced to watch how our culture still doesn’t get what it means to live every moment of a life in the body of a woman.
Baseball.
Purple crayon.
Underwear.
Belt.
The zygotes that did not become children—I think about them. Who would they be? Would they have lived? It’s a question I feel I’ve earned the right to, since one of the children who came through my body died—nothing wrong with my body or hers, sometimes babies just die. Though for more than a decade I believed it was my body that killed her. My body I’d made into a war zone to mirror the culture as I saw it. When Christians in particular talk to me about “killing babies” and abortions, in my head I think, trust me, I know the difference between a dead baby and a zygote. Once a white Christian woman with shellacked blonde hair and the smallest green eyes I’d ever seen told me I was going to hell on my way in to Planned Parenthood. I thought to myself, lady, I’ve been there and back. Only it was called “family.”
Those zygotes, would they be boys? Girls? Would I have survived? I had no money during that part of my life. I stole food and did things I’m not proud of so that I could eat and have shelter and go to school. I also worked three jobs. And still I needed food stamps, just to stay alive. What would they have eaten, the three zygotes, where would they have lived? Would there have been a man under the beds, house, down in the dirt, his rage and violence waiting? Would I have let him in the door, his face so familiar I couldn’t recognize it?
I carry deep shame in my body for the zygotes. I don’t know a single woman alive who is “happy” to have had an abortion. Or two. Or four. And it’s not just me. Other women. Republicans. Democrats. Unaffiliated women. Atheists. Christians. Muslims. Buddhists. Armies of us walking around carrying our body secrets. Our shame over the zygotes. Or maybe there’s something deeper than shame—maybe there’s a second self I had to kill in order to live. The Lidia who believed she deserved it. Could take it. Should. It was a choice.
My father’s tooth is in a pink plastic box that was my mother’s. Inside it too, a lock of my hair and two of my baby teeth and that little bracelet they used to give babies that spells out L-I-D-I-A. I’m the one who put my father’s tooth in there after my mother died. I don’t know why. Sometimes I get it out and look at it – hold it in the palm of my hand. So small. The man who terrorized us. His DNA. So large the culture that let him.
I am a survivor of sexual abuse and male violence. I’ve had three abortions. I also had one baby girl that died the day she was born. I have a husband and a son now. My husband plays cello, and makes films and writes, and in the evening he hits the heavy bag; he’s proficient at Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu. My son can’t throw a baseball properly to save his life. His favorite color is purple. He draws and draws. Me, between them, I am alive, unflinchingly.
***
Executive Order — Preventing and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls GloballyBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. (a) Recognizing that gender-based violence undermines not only the safety, dignity, and human rights of the millions of individuals who experience it, but also the public health, economic stability, and security of nations, it is the policy and practice of the executive branch of the United States Government to have a multi-year strategy that will more effectively prevent and respond to gender-based violence globally.
______________________________________________________