Whose Ox Is Getting Gored Today?

Tags

4th Amendment, Bruce Braley, constitutional rights, freedom, GOP, Health care, Steve King, tea party, teabaggers, Tom Latham, welfare programs

With some folks, freedom and all that fuzzy patriotic stuff can be, shall we say, relative. Much like fundamentalists and their rather astute manner in taking what they like in the Bible quite literally (even when that is not the actual meaning) and ignoring that which they don’t agree with, it seems that our more loudmouthed extremists on the right do the same thing.

You don’t have to watch it. Suffice it to say that our Hannity of Faux News is busy calling Mayor Bloomberg a nanny for his efforts to help his constituents stop ingesting such awful fake food into their bodies.

Now you can agree or not agree with Bloomberg on this. I tend to agree, but I also recognize that it’s very hard to impose such things on people who are addicted to the high sugar, high fat, no nutrient value of a lot of fast food and drink. And there is this other thing–it is an impingement in a sense on one’s right to kill themselves if they so choose.

Note we are not talking about school lunches and the right of school officials to help children develop good eating habits in the first place. That is a laudable goal, and schools provide the opportunity for some children to get the only decent meal they get all day.

But juxtapose Hannity’s silly outrage at Bloomberg’s behavior with that of Nikki Halley’s attempt to limit food stamp usage in her state to only “healthy” food items, meaning that you can’t use them to buy chips and soda and stuff like that I presume. Is she now to be called “nanny” Halley? I’m sure Republicans support her efforts to reduce “obesity” in her state, or is it just possible there is some other motive involved?

I recently had a conversation with a man who hates government programs like food stamps, precisely because he has “stood behind people in line who had food stamps and they weren’t buying good food, but stuff that was unhealthy, and “stuff I wouldn’t be buying if I was allegedly that poor” The real motive being–I want to control charity to others so I can make sure it goes to the “right” people and is used in the “right” way. He had early objected when he offered some leftover pizza to a man who asked for a couple of bucks. When the man reiterated that he’s just like the two bucks, the guy grew incensed, since “he wanted the money, obviously for something other than hunger relief.”

This raises the ugly specter of folks that think they have the right to control those people who they deign to give help to. I you think I’m assuming a bit too much here, I invite you to the case of Florida and Governor Scott’s attempt to impose drug testing on welfare applicants. 

A federal district court ruled Scott’s attempt blatantly unconstitutional, and a Federal appellate court agreed, finding unanimously that the attempt to monitor citizens in this fashion violated their 4th Amendment rights. Note the assumption made here by Scott and Republicans: that welfare recipients necessarily pose a significantly higher threat of drug usage than other citizens. Such is neither warranted by the facts or commons sense, and bespeaks a racist overtone that is apparent to at least me.

Now, I’m told that the conservative seeks to remove government from interfering in the lives of individuals. These examples, serve I think to suggest that that is nothing but balderdash to use a quaint conservative term. It all depends it seems on whose freedoms are at stake–the tiny minority of fellow-traveling extremists, or all those “others” who we don’t really like simply because they ain’t like us.

¥

What to know the ugly truth of why health care costs are so high? It’s because they charge ten times more for stuff and you get stuck with it. They give you a Tylenol and the charge is more than a whole bottle would be at the drugstore. There is a major exposé in Time this week and you can read it here. Thanks to Squatlo Rant for the link up.

¥

Best news of the day? Oh by far it’s that Tom Latham, (R-IA) has determined not to run for Tom Harkin’s senate seat. Latham is a true conservative, but he’s not insane. This leaves the pathway wide open for the one and only truly insane candidate on the extremity of the Republican Right little toe—-our favorite idiot Steve King.

And that means that Bruce Braley, an excellent Democratic candidate who is already “in” for running, is sure to win this seat.

I cannot wait to watch this one. King, who is so famous for not debating his opponent, won’t get away with it this time. It should be fun.

Dear Karl of course was threatening to send in his money against King, which hopefully only will make him want it all the more, and that is all she wrote, said the spider to the fly.

Related articles

• Tom Latham won’t run for Senate in Iowa, clearing path for Steve King (dailykos.com)
• Latham out of U.S. Senate race; King weighing decision (thegazette.com)

 

Lies, Lies, Damnable Lies

Tags

Bruce Braley, Carl Paladino, Catholic Church, Democrats, food stamps, fundamentalism, gay rights, GOP, immigration, Iowa, Latinos, Nazis, Newt Gingrich, Ohio, patriarchy, Politics, right-wing crazies, social issues, violence, women

Private monies funding attack ads are favoring GOPers about seven to one. And there are no reins on them either. Truth, Smuth. Who cares. It’s winning that counts.

Here in Iowa, they are out in force against Bruce Braley (D-IA), from the 1st district. The little dweeb running against him, just bought his first suit, or so it looked at their debate. Yet something like $800,000 is being spent by outside sources to defame Braley, telling Iowa voters that he is responsible for their individual taxes going up a cool $1600 per person next year. A bold-faced lie, but of course his opponent need only shrug and disclaim any responsibility.

This is taking place all over America. The GOP is not funding these “loser” races, because it cannot, but big business can. And they are. Further, as was noted on PBS News Hour, candidates in the future know what they will face.

Of course ads besmirching the character and actual policies and actions of  Democratic incumbents and candidates is only a part of the problem.

The other is the character and policies of the GOP-Teabagger candidates themselves. Paladino, in New York continues to try to walk back his ugly comments about gays.

”I just think your children and my children would be better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option–it isn’t.”

What he included in his written speech but didn’t actually say, and later denounced was this:

“There is nothing to be proud of in being a dysfunctional homosexual. . .[which] is not how God created us.”

Paladino has since tried to walk back his comments claiming a great love for all things gay, except marriage,  but his campaign manager continues to defend his statements as “exactly equivalent to the Catholic church.”  As David Wilson points out in the Commonweal piece, whether Paladino is in line with Catholic teaching or not, is this the way it should be expressed? He asks whether the hierarchy owes some statement about the tone being set by Mr. Paladino.

It is no secret that the Catholic church does not support active homosexuality. In this I would argue that it is categorically wrong and probably on some level realizes it among its scholars at least. However, having painted itself it a corner on many of these issues (the Church being protected by the Holy Spirit and being incapable of error on matters of doctrine and morality), She is having a mighty hard time figuring out how to get in step with modern exegesis and ethics.

To hide behind the Church’s skirts, if you will, is no defense at all to Mr. Paladino. Two wrongs don’t make a right as they say.

***

I had to laugh yesterday when I was perusing the political blogs and came upon a reference to Cantor and his claim that the Ohio wannabe congressman who participates as a Nazi in WWII re-enactments had gone a bit too far. The writer, and I have no clue who it was now, suggested that FINALLY we have found something so outrageous that even Republicans are offended! Not the desire of such folks as Angle and Miller to disband and social security, medicare and Medicaid, and unemployment benefits. Nay, that is just forcing folks to look out for themselves. Not gay bashing, and treating undocumented workers as criminals who deserve hanging. Nay, that is just upholding morality and homeland security. But Nazi sympathizers? That just might be too much.

Cantor probably should speak to DeMint and the cuckoo clock in Delaware, I’m not so sure they would agree with him.

***

Oh Newt the Snoot is at it again. Newt is another of those GOPers who still doesn’t GET that what he said before is actually written down and SAVED. Newty is urging his fellow slugs to start calling the Dems the “party of food stamps.” Except there Newty, you forget! Perhaps there is a limited brain capacity of the average sluggo, and that explains Newty’s failure to recall how he supported  Bush’s rather blatant attempt to increase food stamps for immigrants in the hopes of enlarging the Hispanic vote for the GOPers. Oh Think Progress, don’t miss a thing!

***

It seems to awful to be true, but it is true. And Ahab at Republic of Gilead has done a great job in investigating and reporting on the strong ties between violence against women and children to the religious right. Indeed, it is their screwy interpretation of scripture that endangers women and children every day in this country. Read this and know thy enemy.

***

Hope the day is finding you well and happy.

Related Articles

• Paladino offended gay pride parades’ bumping and grinding (nydailynews.com)