Suffer the children

Nothing says you're "pro-family" like keeping children in an orphanage rather than letting them get adopted by fit parents:

Socially conservative groups behind Tennessee's constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are looking at launching a new push to bar gays and lesbians from adopting children.

The move follows a legal opinion issued Thursday by Attorney General Bob Cooper that there is nothing in the Tennessee constitution or in state law to prevent same-sex couples from becoming adoptive parents.

...

Cooper in his legal opinion said that under current state law anyone 18 years of age or older may adopt, assuming the adoption is found to be in the best interest of the child."

"There is no prohibition in Tennessee statutes against adoption by a same sex couple,"he said.

He also noted that before a judge grants an adoption there must be a finding that the adoptive parents "are fit persons to have the care and custody of the child."

Yeah, it may be in the best interests of the child, and the people may be fit and all, but discriminating against gay people takes precedence over the interests of children. That's the family way!

A similar measure failed in 2005, and "Supporters of the measure said the children would be better off remaining in orphanages than being with a gay parent." Of course.
Read more...

Special Friday Dead Racist Blogging: Presidential Edition

My thesis is this: virtually every American President, including those we glorify most, has been a racist.

—Melvin Steinfield, Our Racist Presidents, p. vii

This is the 1-year anniversary of my Friday Dead Racist Blogging series, started 52 posts ago on Friday, October 13. Therefore today's is a special post, four months in the making.

Modern racists (and even less-modern racists) like to point to the racist attitudes of men who are held in high esteem—partly to provide justification for their views; partly as an appeal to authority; and partly to make them feel better about their own racism. For example, a troll over at David Neiwert's Orcinus with the original handle "Whiteman" recently posted a comment on a post:

Most White men in history have been White nationalists -- Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Edison, Theodore Roosevelt, even Abe Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson.

...

If you want to say that White people throughout history have been "pathological" well then I guess I'm in good company... .

Simply bolstering his own ego by comparing himself to Lindbergh, Edison, Jefferson, and Lincoln—because, I suppose, their racism is what made them great. It's not as though they're remembered for anything else.

Whiteman's stupidity aside, he ably demonstrates that pointing out that former U.S. presidents were racist is common, as though it somehow makes racism legitimate. For instance, in the '50s and '60s groups dedicated to segregation such as the Citizens' Councils of America took out ads in numerous newspapers (see for one the New York Times, 11 February 1964, p. 32) with the title "Lincoln's Hope for the Negro in His Own Words"; this ad was nothing but racist quotes from Abraham Lincoln. I also have a small pamphlet from a Christian Identity group with the title "God and Lincoln on Negro-White Marriages", which is basically the same as the Lincoln ad except that it also includes a quote from Thomas Jefferson, and has a horrible sermon by Sheldon Emry wrapped around it. That they put Lincoln and God side-by-side as if the two were equal authorities always amuses me.

Aside from the blatant appeal to authority, some people take a slightly different tack. After quoting numerous widely-respected Americans, Jared Taylor in "The Racial Revolution" wrote that "views that are considered unacceptable by today's standards were so widespread that virtually anyone who said anything about race reflected those views" and concludes that such views were simply "common sense." Hence, it is those who decry such views who aren't using their common sense. Of course, he doesn't stray too far from the appeal to authority, as a few paragraphs later he writes "Whatever Abraham Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt thought about other races, they would have been insulted to be told it was prejudice, that is to say, unreasonable preconceived judgment." The implication is clear: Roosevelt and Lincoln are heralded as thoughtful men, therefore they couldn't have "unreasonable preconceived judgment[s]." Surely they came to their conclusions after long deliberations, and hey, who are you to disagree with Abraham Lincoln's conclusions?

As thoughtful as they may have been, though, they couldn't escape the culture in which they lived. Melvin Steinfield writes "virtually every American President has been infected by racism." Simply living in a country that since before its founding has set up white supremacist institutions to subjugate black slaves, and to kill Native Americans and rob them of their land, is enough to be "infected by racism"; it doesn't matter whether the people so infected would later grow up to be heralded as near demi-gods, as with our founding fathers. And so I have gathered as many racist quotes as I could from all the presidents of the United States: to show that even great men were still products of their environments, and these men's environments were invariably racist; to show exactly how racist our country has been since its founding, if we accept the presidents as representatives of the countries they led; and just to show that no-one will one-up me on dead racists. And who knows, maybe I'll get some sort of award for "longest blog post ever—no, really, what the hell is wrong with you?"

Read more...

If you own anything more than the clothes on your back, you're not poor

Following up on my previous post on the subject, Amanda at Pandagon and Digby at Hullabaloo have some more to say on the difference between conservative and liberal views towards the poor.
Read more...

Just when I think my estimation of them couldn't get any lower

Um... shit:

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

The documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio's so-called "classified information" defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it.

...

Prosecutors have said they were prepared to poke holes in Nacchio's classified defense.

Nacchio was convicted last spring on 19 counts of insider trading for $52 million of stock sales in April and May 2001, and sentenced to six years in prison. He's free pending appeal.

The partially redacted documents were filed under seal before, during and after Nacchio's trial. They were released Wednesday.

Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.

USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio's attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn't think the NSA program had legal standing.

So... was the NSA gearing up to spy on people months before 9/11?

Via Atrios.
Read more...

I'm not an economist. Does it show?

There was a GOP debate the other day, and the Boston Globe has a piece about it. I found this interesting: Romney apparently believes that the line-item veto is constitutional. I don't know whether he meant that he thought the Supreme Court was wrong, or if he really doesn't consider their opinion to the contrary to be meaningful. Giuliani at least stuck up for them:

They swapped their strongest words over the may or's successful lawsuit challenging the Clinton administration's use of the line-item veto. Romney said he believed that presidential power was not only constitutional, but also necessary to control government spending.

"You have to be honest with people," Giuliani responded to his rival. "And you can't fool all of the people all of the time. The line-item veto is unconstitutional. You don't get to 'believe' about it; the Supreme Court has ruled on it."

The debate was mostly over economic matters, so of course the candidates had to masturbate using Bigby's Invisible Hand of the Free Market:

The debate, hosted by CNBC, The Wall Street Journal, and the Michigan Republican Party, was designed to focus on economic issues, and the top contenders appeared to find consensus on major policy matters. They alternated in delivering largely undifferentiated paeans to low taxes, free trade, restrained government spending, and the power of the free market.

Uh-huh. And yet, despite their calls for "restrained government spending", they all seemed pretty willing to suck up to Bush's economic genius:

Dissent from Bush economic policy came almost exclusively from the candidates lagging in the polls, who took issue with most favored nation status for China (Representative Duncan Hunter of California), presidential "fast-track" authority for trade negotiations (Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado), and the country's historical departure from the gold standard (Representative Ron Paul of Texas).

That kinda surprised me. I thought they'd all be trying to show just how much un-like Bush they were. Oh, well; no, they still think that Bush's economy is doing great. And if mere peasants are struggling... well, that's the state's fault.

Really:

The debate was held in Dearborn, a Detroit suburb that has stood at the intersection of the major currents in Bush-era foreign and domestic policy. It was in the streets of the country's largest Arab-American enclave that Iraqi refugees celebrated the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in the spring of 2003, and at the headquarters of Ford Motor Co. that the effects of global trade on American manufacturing have been most acutely felt.

In an interview before the debate, Saul Azunis, Michigan Republican Party chairman, was pessimistic about his state's future, citing a six-year job-loss streak and foreclosure rates among the country's highest. "Michigan is all about the economy," he said. "The jobs issue is really affecting us."

Yet, the candidates remained largely cheerful about the nature of the American economy, as they attempted to divorce local fortunes from national ones. The leading candidates stood by the Bush administration's policies on taxes and trade, blaming state government for the area's troubles. Romney quipped that he feared that Michigan's Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm, "was going to put a tax on this debate."

Ahahahahaha! Democrats want taxes so that the government can pay for things, therefore they're fiscally irresponsible! And so are all the states whose economies are in the toilets. But America as a whole--as opposed to any individual part--is doing great! Why, we're even up to 0.98% of the Canadian dollar! Can't beat that.

And this quip from McCain was just bizarre:

"By the way, a dollar-a-pack increase for cigarettes?" said McCain, a leader on efforts in the mid-1990s to regulate the tobacco industry. "So we want to take care of children's health and we want everybody to smoke? I don't get it."

Uh, no, you flaming imbecile. People are going to smoke, despite our efforts to stop them. We can use this fact to our advantage by increasing the prices on cigarettes and using the profits to fund health insurance for children in a pique of delicious irony. People are going to smoke--so we might as well make some good come of it.

Or we could just blame their parents for making poor choices, a la Michelle Malkin.
Read more...

At least the NYT gets it

Following up on the emetic attacks on 12-year old children with medical problems, the New York Times apparently picked up the story, and actually didn't take the right-wing assholes' arguments at face-value. But what really struck me was Michelle "Japanese internment was a good idea" Malkin's argument:

Michelle Malkin, one of the bloggers who have strongly criticized the Frosts, insisted Republicans should hold their ground and not pull punches.

"The bottom line here is that this family has considerable assets," Ms. Malkin wrote in an e-mail message. "Maryland's S-chip program does not means-test. The refusal to do assets tests on federal health insurance programs is why federal entitlements are exploding and government keeps expanding. If Republicans don't have the guts to hold the line, they deserve to lose their seats."

These assets include the Graemes' home and another property that they rent.

So, yeah. Malkin wants them to have to choose between keeping their home or paying their children's medical bills. Classy!
Read more...

Her arguments are also nothing more than catfights. Can't forget that.

Does this strike anyone else as more sexist tripe aimed at Clinton?

Five Democratic candidates have withdrawn from Michigan's Jan. 15 presidential primary, leaving what amounts to a beauty contest for front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton and a handful of lesser-knowns.

The article never returns to that phrase, so it's not clear what makes it a "beauty contest." Perhaps because it's all for show, as the DNC won't recognize any primary before February 5 except for a handful of states. Or perhaps because Clinton is an ickle girl and therefore her political actions are only a "beauty contest." Would the media, despite their raging erections for such virile exemplars of manliness as the GOP candidates, describe a Republican primary as a "beauty contest"? I somehow doubt it.
Read more...

Conservative: person who has had their sense of empathy surgically removed

TBogg found a fairly vile screed trying to explain why right-wingers don't care about kids not getting health care but are up in arms over gay rights and global warming. Or, uh, something. Basically, her argument boils down to "poor people don't exist."

No, seriously.

That's why I don't care about the poor. They're no more real than Bigfoot.

These mythical poor exist only in foggy glades, or out-of-focus films, and are only rumored to exist:

No one I know uses food banks. No one THEY know uses food banks.

Well damn, that settles it! This one snot-nosed brat hasn't seen a poor person, therefore they don't exist. Just like how I've never seen Europe, therefore it doesn't exist.

But what about all these poor people that you hear about? Well, they're not really poor. They're just stupid. And lazy. And they chose to be poor by not being Kathy Shaidle, apparently.

If they're "poor" it's because they were too lazy and stupid to a) finish high school and/or b) keep their pants on. Jesus had something to say about folks who didn't properly manage their money or other people's, and who squandered free gifts and good will. He told the adulteress to sin no more, not to find herself another baby daddy.

He also told his followers to sell all their worldly possessions; to give to the poor; to help the needy, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and visit the sick; and said that it was impossible for a rich man to get into heaven.

But hey, who's counting? It's like Al Franken says: "I've noticed that the only Biblical parable supply-siders ever mention is [the Parable of the] Talents."

Why do "right wing Christians" seem to "care" more about abortion, or terrorism, or gay marriage/adoption or even the hoax known as global warming, more than they "care" about the poor? I plead guilty -- because there are more radical gays and feminists and global warming hoaxers than there are poor people in North America. These activists want to brainwash our kids, or worse. And terrorists want to blow them up. In the face of such threats, forgive me if the fact that Lakeesha can't afford a new weave this week cuz she spent all her money on a new cell phone fails to get me humming "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night."

Yeah. There are a lot more terrorist attacks than poor people out there. (It's also interesting that right-wingers are "care" about abortion while mocking poor people as promiscuous, baby-making losers. But then, they "chose" this.)

And besides, with names like "Lakeesha", poor people are obviously black. And lazy. So, well, fuck 'em. It's what Jesus would do.
Read more...

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

George W. Bush: We are not at war with Islam.

Tim Walberg: The fuck we're not.

To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing.

Read more...

No title I give for this would beat Digby's

Recall that 12-year old kid that the Democrats used to gain support for SCHIP? And how right-wingers went berserk over the idea that Democrats would dare use a kid who needs health insurance to illustrate the fact that there are kids out there who need health insurance?

Well, it wasn't enough for the nuts to attack the Democrats for this stunt. No, they had to go after the kid and his family, too. Whiskey Fire has a couple of posts on this, while ThinkProgress highlights the information that these bastards omit in their disgusting attacks.

And of course, Digby has some choice words for this sordid spectacle.
Read more...