Republicans make me mad

Okay, not all republicans. Really, more the libertarians who for some reason seem to think we live in a world where the individual is the end all, be all, highest, most important, most sacred thing to worry about. Like, say, people who think FEMA is a bad idea and states should suck it up and plan for disasters better (and thank you, Diane Rehm for having such a wonderfully easy to hate guest on. Dan Mitchell is a pompous, uncaring ass whose only redeeming virtue is showing how heartless and distasteful the philosophy currently guiding republican policy truly is). Or people who apply the analogy of a family to the federal government, but only when it's convenient, not when actually talking about caring or sacrifice, or silly things like that.

Okay, I should probably explain a bit since I'm sure this is cryptic and probably nobody's going to listen to the Diane Rehm show to see what I'm talking about. Republicans think money to pay for the many disasters that have hit this summer should be paid for by cutting someplace else, because when a family experiences some disaster they have to find money from some other part of their budget to pay for whatever expense--the new roof or new car, or whatnot. Except, of course, I've never heard anyone talk about that particular aspect of budgeting in the middle of a crisis. Instead, people I know try to figure out what needs to be done and what they'll need to get through things, assuming they'll figure out the financing, or the insurance, later. You know, like they're worried about people more than money. In the midst of people loosing life and livelihoods the discussion of what to cut from the rest of the budget to finance FEMA feels cold and calculated not to help people, but rather to use the misfortune of others to further cut into government programs which, oh, by the way, mostly benefit the non-rich people. They completely ignore the fact that state Governors asked for FEMA to be created, ask for FEMA to assist them, and ignore the great good that is done by FEMA, insisting instead that states should I guess pull themselves up by their boostraps and take care of themselves. There really are times when collective action is a far better approach; it's frustrating to watch republicans do everything they can to destroy even the apparatus for a collective action approach to dealing with disasters, or really any part of our civilization outside the military. It's like they don't want to see how average people are helped, and help each other more effectively because the government is there to organize; it's like the suffering of those who, through sheer bad luck, need some assistance from the rest of us, is simply another tool they can use to dismantle the government they despise (and yet claim patriotism toward).

These republicans are a cynical, heartless bunch.

Cesar Chavez day

I don't remember celebrating Cesar Chavez day in California when I was an undergrad a decade ago. I don't know if that's because it's a holiday that was more recently adopted, or because it's just not a holiday that was celebrated at 'tech. They do celebrate at UCSD, which I suppose is unsurprising given it's a state school.

I didn't mind the day off, and I don't think it was a bad thing for Derrick either, given he's been a little under the weather and resistant to taking a day off to recuperate (funny thing about people who truly love what they do--it's hard to get them to take a day off, even when they should!). Yesterday Derrick was explaining the upcoming holiday to his parents, and then complained a bit about it. His complaint (which I sort of agree with) is that it's silly to have a bunch of holidays celebrating different civil rights leaders.

I completely agree that we should have a day set aside to celebrate all the different civil rights movements that have done so much to benefit all the non-white, male, propertied people in the country. But having a day dedicated to Martin Luther King ignores all the other people who worked toward black civil rights in the '60s and ignores the other civil rights movements that have shaped this country. It ignores the emancipation of blacks, which was arguably a more important rectification of the mismatch between the ideals of the constitution and the actual practice of law. When asked to speak on the 4th of July, Frederick Douglass said,

I am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth [of] July is yours, not mine.

The founding fathers were visionary men, who recognized the existence of inalienable rights, granted not by virtue of the whim of a ruler, but as natural rights all men deserved. Unfortunately, their definition of men extended only to white men who owned property. Blacks, native Americans, women, and members of basically any other group were denied this "inalienable rights." The battle--and it was a battle--to extend the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights was long-fought and had to be re-fought for every separate group in some way. Many, many people sacrificed time, money, and effort working to convince those who enjoyed the privilege of the Bill of Rights to extend those rights to others.

From that standpoint, it seems silly to privilege the civil rights efforts of the '60s, and even more silly to recognize only one or two of the men (and none of the women) who worked so long and so hard for the ideals of freedom. It also seems a worthwhile exercise to consider how different the rights provided by the Bill of Rights were in the early 1800's compared to our interpretation of them today.

So, Derrick mentioned Cesar Chavez day to his parents, and was a bit dismissive of it, basically because he thinks it silly to have a day for each civil rights movement. Really, if we were to memorialize each one, or each leader, with a holiday, our calendar would be littered with days commemorating civil rights. His parents agreed--a little overmuch. His dad said something like, "I don't see why we have any civil rights holidays."

To which I responded, "That's because you're a white male. You've never had to worry about civil rights."

That may be one of my best conversation-enders yet.

Radiation

I've heard a couple of stories on NPR claiming people in the US are worried radiation from Japan is going to make it over here. The strange thing to me is that the couple of scientists I've heard respond haven't laughed in the faces of those who are worried. Perhaps I'm just mean, but if someone seriously suggested radiation from JAPAN was going to harm me here in CALIFORNIA, I'd probably question their knowledge of geography. There is an entire ocean, and not a small one, separating the two countries. Knowledgeable people tell us radiation isn't likely to be a serious hazard for most of Japan, never mind the US.

The self-centeredness of the worry too--the workers at the nuclear plant are legitimately risking their health and possibly their lives, there are more than a billion people who are much, much closer to Japan than we are, and we're worried about our risk?

I'm not sure I should even link this for fear of spreading misinformation. Lest you wonder, initially I thought this report on Faux news was a parody. While one of my professors in college taught us it was possible some animals, especially those living underground, might be able to sense imminent earthquakes a few minutes out, there's no credible reason to think we can seriously predict an earthquake days in the future based on animal behavior. That geologist is crazy--I want to see his statistics on the whale beaching-earthquake connection, though apparently the anecdotal info is good enough for the Fox newscaster.

Crazy.

Legislative fun

Want a peek into the political argument going on in Washington? Well, the GOP has provided a lovely of all the amendments proposed for the H.R. 1 bill (the budget).

Ideology is proudly on display in those amendment, folks, with republicans proposing to de-fund any bill or organization they don't like (Health care, the new consumer protection agency, the IPCC, NSF, NOAA, and EPA, and the list goes on). Dems mostly either take aim at the military or simply strike out sections of the H.R. 1 bill. It's a pretty mind-numbing read, though sadly important, while at the same time a complete waste of time in terms of actually attacking the problems they're supposedly aiming at.

Utah, place of sanity

I'm sure it's far from passing, but apparently there are at least a few cooler heads in the immigration debate--and in Utah, no less. According to this USA Today article there's a proposal before the Utah state legislature to grant illegal immigrants work permits, as long as they undergo criminal background checks, pay taxes, and learn English. What a sane, rational idea--find out who is in the country, make sure they're not criminals, and put in place a mechanism to both keep them from being exploited and collect the taxes that will support the resources they do use. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Of course, there are people who don't like the plan, and I'm sure there are other proposals out there to treat them like criminals and make their lives as miserable as possible, but it's still wonderful to see at least a few people seriously thinking about how to deal with illegal immigrants in a measured, respectful way.

Interconnections

Have you heard about what's going on in Egypt? The riots and demonstrations, and demands for democracy from a people who have spent the last 29 years living in a dictatorship? I imagine you have, given you'd pretty much have to live in a box to not hear anything about the Egyptian riots.

I have to say, I think this is pretty cool to watch. Admittedly, I have no stakes in the events--no family, no friends; nobody I know is in any sort of danger--but I am pretty excited to see Egyptians pressing for democracy. I hope they get it, and I hope it brings them prosperity and freedom, and better lives all around. I hope that they soon see free, fair elections, and that those men and women who are elected take more care of the needs of their fellow countrymen than Mubarak has.

While perusing blogs to read more about what's going on in Egypt, I came across an account of the evacuation of LDS people on Hissatopia, and there, amongst the list, "People I Love" is the Island of Phelps (which I also link to, and who I would also categorize as "People I love"). It is a small, small world, and technology makes it even smaller. (In another random connection I had no inkling of until today, the Belts link to a San Diego family in my ward. Such a small world)

A Christian Nation

Those of you who are fans of Steven Colbert have undoubtedly already seen this clip, or at least heard reference to it. If you aren't a fan, or just don't want to sit through four and a quarter minutes of Colbert, the gist of the skit is encapsulated in this cartoon. Either one suggests the hypocrisy of some politicians claiming a Christian heritage for our nation while at the same time dismantling government programs aimed primarily at providing financial assistance to the poor.

Especially as we go into the new year in Sunday school discussing the New Testament, the questions of how Christ wanted us to treat one another, and what our obligations are to our neighbors--and who exactly is our neighbor--are perhaps things to at least keep in the back of our minds.

Pinko

My father in law called me a commie today.

Admittedly, I goaded him into it, telling him that the government should be in the business of redistributing wealth. Not that I think income equality should be strictly enforced--there are jobs that certainly deserve higher or lower pay--only that the current system supports too much income inequality and, since people are unlikely to take the steps necessary to fix that on their own, the government should step in.

But that's big government, and I'm a tax and spend liberal, a.k.a--communist.

Derrick, being the caring son that he is, called his parents back later to skype with Sylvia and go through stuff we want them to bring out at Christmas. He really is a good son and I skould learn more charity from him.

In other news, there's a bit of a baby boom in my new ward. Something like 9 women are pregnant--many suddenly (to me, gone for a couple of weeks) visibly so. Seven or eight of women got together for a picture after church, which reminded me of the picture we took of all us pregnant ladies just before Sylvia was born.

Mind the gap

I finally listened to Radio West's interview with Timothy Noah, who wrote a series of articles on income inequality on Slate.com. It's worth a listen and/or read.

The gist of it is this: there's a growing income gap between the rich and poor. Today, the top 1% of wage earners take home 24% of all income earned in this country. In the late 1920's, just before the Great Depression, the top 1% took home more like 18% of all wages. We actually see more income inequality now than was present during the Gilded age, yet there's almost no public outcry. Indeed, people are angry at the government and over taxes rather than angry at the rich over their increasing compensation. Noah documents the economic and political forces that are likely at work, showing it's a host of small things like changes in the tax code and increasing executive compensation, that have added up to the great divergence between incomes at the highest and lower levels. The NY Times has an editorial on the ethics of letting such an income gap continue.

And of course, today I read this blurb. Guess avoiding paying taxes doesn't count into the whole not being evil mantra.

Katy Perry on Sesame Street

Katy Perry sang a duet with Elmo on Sesame Street that caused some controversy. To be specific, her outfit caused some controversy as it shows off more of her cleavage than was strictly necessary.

The song's actually pretty cute, if you can get past the outfit (which I must admit is an outfit I would have worn to dress up in as a kid. It's, uh, kinda ugly). Sylvia loves the song in spite of the fashion. Unfortunately, it's getting harder to find a copy of the song itself on youtube, so I'm embedding it here so nobody else has to wade through pages of entertainment "reports" on the controversy.

The politics of Mormonism

So, Mormons tend to be very conservative. In fact, the more active a Mormon is, the more likely he or she is to be conservative and republican, at least here in the US. You'd think that would earn us some props from religious conservatives, but no, apparently we still worship a different Jesus:

Mormonism and Mammonism are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. They offer another Lord Jesus than the One offered in the Scriptures and Christian tradition, and another way to approach him. An embrace of these tragic new vehicles for the old Gnostic heresy is unloving to our Mormon friends and secularist neighbors, and to the rest of the watching world.

Wow! First, I didn't realize Mormonism, with its emphasis on charity giving and tithes, was the equivalent of Mammonism. Second, I didn't realize I'm actually a Gnostic. But apparently because we believe the pre-mortal Christ carried out the action of creation, rather than the Father, we're Gnostics. Of course, the reasonings behind Christ creating the world in Mormonism and in Gnosticism are completely different (since we don't really talk about why--I've always assumed it was just a delegation of authority to teach or lessen the burden--Gnosticism holds God couldn't create the Earth because matter is inherently evil and God can't handle anything evil, thus he created an "emanation" capable of handling evil matter). No, it doesn't matter that the underlying philosophy is completely different, it's the ill-informed, outward image that's important here. So until we start worshiping the true Jesus, we will never truly be worthy of leading the republican party.

The F word, WOW

Well, we still need feminism. Not that life is great for men around the world, but especially if life sucks for men, life really sucks for women. I know, some of those examples are overwrought and manipulative, but still, some of them are really striking. More than half a million women die in labor every year? That's incredible in a day when the birth process for American women is so medicalized almost a third of all births are by c-section.

If that article depresses you, cheer up--drinking, even in excess leads to longer life. Unless, of course, you follow the word of wisdom. Then you can just be sad. Like me.

;)

Goodie, goodie gumdrops

I bet church is going to be really fun on Sunday.

Well that worked well

Earlier this month, on the 4th of July in fact, a political email went out to a listserv I subscribe to. Shortly after I replied, the original email and my reply were taken down, which irritated me as I assumed (likely incorrectly) that my divergent, liberal viewpoint was the cause of the removal.

I'm guessing I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion, since another conservative political email just came through.

Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah
Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.

Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.

I'd like to know what values are in need of restoration. Slavery? Disenfranchisement of anyone who isn't a white, male, land owner?

Man, am I whiny today or what?

I feel like my original conclusion (that the political discussion was the problem, rather than the expression of a political viewpoint) is the one that people reached from the quick take down of that earlier post. Obviously there are some people who think it's still appropriate to express political views, even after being asked not to. I'm sure it's just coincidence the person is a tea bagger.

I'm temped to send this quote from Frederick Douglass:

Your fathers have lived, died, and have done their work, and have done much of it well. You live and must die, and you must do your work. ... You have no right to wear out and waste the hard-earned fame of your fathers to cover your indolence. Sydney Smith tells us that men seldom eulogize the wisdom and virtues of their fathers, but to excuse some folly or wickedness of their own. This truth is not a doubtful one. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have "Abraham to our father," when they had long lost Abraham’s faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham’s great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great.

Frederick Douglass, 1852

But I just don't think she'd get it.

Political discussion

It's said that political discussions should be avoided in polite company. Women, being polite company, were thus excluded from political debate. I, being an impolite woman, am actually rather fond of political debate--as long as it is conducted in a civil, respectful manner. For that reason, I try to be civil in my discussion of politics (not that I don't get emotional, I just try to keep it in check and basically avoid telling people they're dumb for a given belief. Keeps friendships more intact).

Which is why I'm perplexed. Remember this discussion? If not, in brief it's a discussion that was started on a listserv to which I subscribe when someone sent out a story about gay people attacking an LDS temple and I responded with my own, not so pro prop 8 thoughts. Shortly after I responded, that discussion was taken down from the listserv. Given how emotional some of the responses were (and some emails I received privately) I could see why that discussion was taken down, especially since the listserv was supposedly not exclusively for LDS women and therefore faith-based discussions were supposed to be avoided. I was still a little annoyed, given how many other faithful, LDS-centric posts get through the review of the moderator, but it seemed reasonable and I was new enough to the group to think I'd missed out on a rule.

This independence day I found the following posted on the listserv:

Hi Ladies,
A badly misnamed campaign finance bill, the Disclose Act, is currently under consideration in the Senate. The bill is toted to make corporate-donated campaign money more transparent but in reality it can be dangerously used to limit or even silence opposing voices. According to the American Family Association website (from which much of the following is taken), among the many special exemptions in the bill (which are very dangerous in and of themselves), there is a special exemption carved out in the bill for unions, the Sierra Club and the AARP, so the rules won't apply to them. Here’s the danger: the bill will go into effect just 30 days after it is signed by President Obama, just in time to silence all pro-family, pro-life and other conservative groups before the fall elections. The bill has already been pushed through the House, and will get pushed through the Senate in the next few days unless we intervene. To make sure it can't be challenged in court prior to November, the bill expressly prohibits expedited judicial review. This prevents a level playing field this fall; they want one tilted steeply in their favor. When the Founders gave us the First Amendment, they prohibited Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech,” by which they certainly meant freedom of political speech. They knew that a representative republic can only thrive if it protects vigorous public debate during elections. These heaven-inspired principles of liberty are under attack, and we have an opportunity to raise our voices in support of them, if you see this as I do. The bill can be defeated in the Senate if our senators hear it loud and clear from their constituents. What a great way to celebrate the 4th of July and commemorate those wonderful Founding Fathers who sacrificed everything they had and held dear to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and to their posterity. An easy way to contact your senators and to learn more about the bill is to visit the American Family Association website at
http://www.capwiz.com/afanet/issues/alert/?alertid=15192516
and at the top of the page there is a link to enter your zip code and it’ll show you how to email your senators.

Thank you for your consideration and concern on these issues, especially as we remember the Lord’s hand in the founding of America.

God Bless America.

Sincerely,

(name removed)

to which I replied:

According to this,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3295

the bill hasn't made it out of committee yet. Also, the ACLU hasn't taken a stance--pro or negative--against the bill. A bunch of corporations and conservative groups have taken a stance against the bill and a very few groups are for it (unsurprising--I suspect that's the case most of the time since it's easier to get people worked up against something than for something).

according to my reading of the summary, this bill would only prohibit contributions from government contractors, recipients of TARP money, and foreign-controlled corporations. Everybody else just has to declare their spending and declare over a larger window of time (which they already have to do anyway). This sounds like an effort to track-- not even really limit, just track--campaign contributions. I'm not sure why I should consider those restrictions bad or any infringement on political speech. Didn't the supreme court just rule signatures on petitions have to be disclosed? If my signature, and the speech that denotes, has to be a matter of public record, why shouldn't spending be the same?

I thought my reply was, while direct, not particularly inflammatory, or even especially political. Yet less than 20 minutes after I posted, both posts were taken down, with a reminder to keep political discussion off the listserv.

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I feel like the only reason this discussion warranted a removal was that a liberal (me) responded. Plenty of other political notices are posted, including announcements for tea party gatherings. Nobody bats an eyelash until a democrat appears, at which point all evidence of the offending conversation must be removed with a stern reminder to keep discussions non-political.

It's crap.

Discussions are going to delve into politics simply because we're human beings with beliefs and many of those beliefs have political implications. Discussions that involve those beliefs are going to elicit emotions sometimes, even strong ones, but I would claim that's a good thing, not something to be shut down. As long as the discussion remains civil there's the opportunity to challenge beliefs, be they our own or those of another, with the end result being a strengthening of beliefs that are reasonable and based on a good foundation and erosion of less tenable beliefs (or so one would hope). Thus it irks me that only complimentary discussion (and by that I mean conforming to the majority viewpoint) seems allowable. Sure, it's a private listserv primarily for community service-type announcements, but when someone brings up something false, why should any of us be expected to sit on our digits simply to avoid political discussion?

***
update
***

I complained to one of my friends about the removal of the post so soon after I replied to it. Turns out she complained about the post to the moderator of the group, so I'm guessing the removal had more to do with that. Makes me feel much better about the situation.

Immigration

Since so many states (including Utah) are considering Arizona-style immigration laws, it might behoove us all to think about the actual statistics of illegal immigration.

Speaking of immigration (of a sort), I'm sure there are a few of you who read this blog who'd potentially be interested in (or know someone else who would be interested in) participating in the Women of Faith project. It's an opportunity to participate in a scholarly examination of the all too often overlooked, but still influential, women active in the early LDS church.

Unfortunately not

I wish this were an April fool's joke. Why, oh why, is Utah full of such wankers? Why do they keep getting reelected? How does it make sense to take $3 million dollars from the education system to fund a lawsuit that's doomed to failure (since it makes absolutely no sense)?

Yeah, this is what you get, people, when you have a effective single-party system and that party decides to go off the deep end.

Reductio ad absurdum

I love satire. When done well, it's a great way to make a point.

Go Utah Legislature!

Sen. Buttars has another great money saving idea. I'm guessing he wasn't a terribly dedicated student. The Utah Legislature is also looking at a resolution requesting the EPA cease its attempts to control CO2 since global warming is based on "flawed science" perpetuated by scientists in a "well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome."

Someday I will laugh about all this. Today, I just want to cry.

So cute, Newt!

I just love it when Republicans try to sound populist. It's adorable. Take Newt Gingritch in this interview on NPR. He claims,

But the convoluted, very complex system that we built over the last 30 years has primarily been anti-middle class. It's been anti-middle class candidates. If you're going to retain constitutional freedom and allow people to criticize their politicians effectively and allow them to be engaged effectively, I think you want to really be engaged in allowing the maximum of resources to be in politics, not the minimum.

My thinking was always the best way to criticize your politicians is with direct communication to said politicians and a vote against them if they fail to live up to your desires. Silly me!

He also claims,

Well, the president was elected in part by labor unions who massed their resources of people, who have no choice but to have their money taken out of their dues. The president spent money that was donated through to a variety of organizations, including MoveOn.org, by very, very rich people.

Those rich people, all over the country; more than a million of them. More donors than any other campaign in history. Yeah, those very, very rich people who donated to the Obama campaign and helped him steal the election from the Republicans, the true keepers of our nation's best interests.

Well, now those populist Republicans can even the playing field! They can accept as much money as companies will give them. Isn't that great?

If only people could be counted on to question everything they're told, especially on TV and radio, and find out the truth behind whatever claims are made in the political arena--whether from conservatives or liberals--then it wouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately, advertisers pretty much know what's going to convince people to buy something, whether it be a product or an idea, and I fear all this money will do is spread the lies we all want to hear further and further. Sounds like Factcheck.org is going to be a more and more important (and I hope more and more widely read) source of political information in the future.