Not Too Late To Make A Difference This Year

That's it. I am sick and fucking tired of wingnut freakazoids getting credit for being "charitable" when all they're really doing is paying protection money to their churches, whose clergy use it to buy cocaine and secret abortions.

When a supposed liberal like Nick Kristof falls for the lie, it's gotten out of hand.

We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Bullshit. Utter, complete, unadulterated bullshit.


Dig down into those studies and you'll find - oops!, sorry, not so much.

Rich people - conservative and liberal - tend to give money to education (private colleges they want to get their kinds into as legacies), museums/arts (fancy new wings named after the donors) and research (more personalized construction.)

Religious people of all persuasions give to their religious organizations, which spend the vast majority of that money on administrative salaries and building maintenance. Doubt it? Drive past Southland Christian Church in Lexington and tell me you think that fancy ten-building campus looks like a charitable organization.

Non-religious, non-rich conservatives don't give jack shit to anybody. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, bitch, and don't whine that you're barefoot!

Non-religious, non-rich liberals, granted, tend not to give much to charity, either, but here's the difference between them and their conservative counterparts: liberals make their contribution by pushing for pro-labor, pro-worker, pro-job, pro-family, pro-health care government policies that help large numbers of people in ways private charity simply cannot.

George H.W. Bush's ridiculous "Thousand Points of Light" was the perfect example. All the charities in the country together could not replace a single government program to help poor people, like even the minimal Food Stamp Program.

And if you think I'm making excuses for myself, here's my own charitable record: I give to what I consider real charities - those who help those who cannot help themselves. Local food banks, homeless shelters, drug rehab for single mothers, family planning, victims of war and disease. I have gradually increased the amount over the years, until last year I gave three percent of my gross income. This year, with so many in need, I jumped it to four percent. Not much, but finally more than the national average.

Don't get me wrong; I do it out of pure selfishness. My favorite part of the holidays is making the list of charities I will donate to, figuring the total amount I will donate, dividing it up among the charities (making sure everybody gets at least a little more than they got last year), and writing out each check. I like to send a holiday card with it, so the organization can tape the card up on the door to show off their donors.

They always send a letter of thanks. Yes, it's required by the IRS, but the local charities almost always add a little hand-written personal note.

It is absolutely the greatest feeling in the world to know that someone in need is getting a meal, a home, medicine because of you.

There aren't enough church recreation centers in the world to match that.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Not Too Late To Make A Difference This Year" >>

Even Conservatives Should Hurl Shoes: Bush Is A Waste Of Skin

By now, I'm sure everyone who has a TV set has seen the Iraqi journalist throw his shoes at Il Doofus at the Baghdad news conference. I understand he also called Bush a dog. That seems insulting to canines, known in Western cultures for loyalty and unconditional love. But I also understand that in Arab culture, dogs are ill-regarded, considered unclean animals.

While thinking about what to post about the incident, it occurred to me that a former friend of mine, a staunch Texas-bred conservative, would lament about seeing an A-Rab insult our president. He would lament further about how liberal Democrats are set to take control of most of the federal government. How could this have happened?

I hate to sound like fellow Texan Ross Perot, of whom I am no fan. But to paraphrase him, it's this simple.

Conservatives: You folks blew it. It's that simple.

You blew it when you bet the farm on a man who is, arguably, the most pathetic waste of skin ever to sit in the Oval Office.

Let's forget Il Doofus' penchant for butchering English, his broken Spanish, his prodigal youth, his utter lack of intellectual curiosity, his smirking conceit, and on and on. One can't expect perfection of anyone, and some might even regard Bush's human idiosyncrasies as endearing.

Let's just stick to measurable results. It's hard to think of one sound decision Il Doofus has made in nearly eight years in office. This is a man who cut taxes deeply for the wealthy, threw a few scraps from the table to con the middle class into thinking they were getting something, then pursued a stunningly expensive elective war.

The result is an annual deficit that could approach $1 trillion for his final budget.

This is a "president" who doggedly stuck with the ideology of deregulation, even as a meltdown of subprime mortgages was imminent, and years after the chicanery of Enron and Arthur Andersen was evident. Now the taxpayers are stuck with a financial bailout of shocking proportions, and in the middle of a recession.

Back to the war: It's not hard to understand why millions of Iraqis would loathe Il Doofus. Those millions would not include the estimated million or so who have died as a direct result of Bush's unnecessary war. It's said that dictator Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of a million Iraqis. Some sources say that Bush, in his own bungling way, has got Saddam matched there.

"He (Bush) has ruined the Republican brand," lamented one conservative officeholder. Well, it's not completely Bush's fault, although largely. Conservative Republicans have long been known for economic ideologies that reward the wealthy and punish everyone from middle class on down. It's an approach that tends to work only as long as there is general prosperity, and as long as there is a powerful propaganda apparatus to persuade lots of people to vote against their own interests.

The right has also been characterized by a might-makes-right foreign policy that has made the U.S. a target of hate the world over. This went on all through the Cold War, but at least then there was arguably a reason for it, since even paranoids can have enemies. But the entire planet, at least the part that thinks, knows now that Saddam Hussein didn't have shit for WMDs and was being contained. Even the Bushies had to admit at some point that the "intelligence" was bad.

I'll speculate that the "intelligence" was irrelevant to Il Doofus, as any intelligence has generally been. He thought his elective war was going to be easy -- that Iraqis would not be throwing shoes, but rather rose petals at American feet. (And then, there would be all that wonderful oil!)

Even conservatives need to face it. This man has been King Midas in reverse. Everything he touches turns to feces. Even if one considers the limitations of conservative ideology, Bush has pursued some thoughtless sort of "conservatism" so artlessly that he makes the likes of Ronald Reagan look shrewd in comparison.

For those who want to see it again, here's YouTube video of the shoe-throwing incident:



Included is Il Doofus' moronic reaction, consisting mostly of snickering and smirking and stupid jokes.

I'll say it once more: Conservatives, you blew it. Now, from all sides, let the size 10s fly.

Postscript: That journalist is a pretty good pitcher. Too bad that back when Bush was frontman for the Texas Rangers, the team didn't have an extra dude with that much control and velocity.

There's more: "Even Conservatives Should Hurl Shoes: Bush Is A Waste Of Skin" >>

At the end of the day

Clinton & Obama -- The Democratic debate in CA liveblogged at FDL here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and the final thread here.

The Democratic debate transcript from CNN.

Fact check of the GOP debate from CA: "Romney commits multiple distortions in the last scheduled GOP debate. Others stumble, too."

Barack attack -- "Republican researchers are poring over the Illinois Democrat’s three-year Senate voting record, looking for fresh fodder to be used should Obama become the Democratic Party’s nominee." Via The Hill.

Caning McCain -- "Poor Hugh Hewitt and the rest of right wing talk radio. They are very upset by McCain and are trying to torpedo his candidacy." John Amato

"No Answers, No Deputy" -- "Senate Democrats plan to delay a floor vote on President Bush’s nominee [Mark Filip] for the No. 2 post at the Justice Department until the department responds to several Judiciary Committee oversight letters."

Senate Democrats held up on the economic stimulus package until next week awaiting the return of Clinton and Obama. At the NYT, Herszenhorn wrote that Senate Repubs "blocked a $157 billion economic stimulus package championed by Senate Democrats, who said they would have no choice but to quickly adopt a cheaper, more streamlined plan approved earlier this week by the House." And about that "surrender flag" you mentioned in your article, Mr. Herszenhorn. Maybe you can deliver it to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., for hiring Bill Kristol.

Al Qaeda leader killed -- Yet another No. 3? How many are there? Read Steve Benen.

A new GAO report on veterans with TBI -- traumatic brain injury -- was posted by Pale Rider at Blue Girl's place. Intel Dump offered a TBI-PTSD study of Iraqi vets from the New England Journal of Medicine.

"U.S. casualties rise in Iraq after falling for 4 months."

Iraq -- "Terrorists aren't Mosul's only problem. The city's Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs detest each other, and the Arabs distrust the city's Kurdish, Christian and Turkmen minorities. Although 60 percent of Mosul's population of 1.8 million is Sunni, three-quarters of the provincial government is Kurdish, and the Arabs suspect the Kurds of wanting to take over the city."

Po' paranoid conservatives -- They see enemies everywhere! Yikes! Oh! Eeeeeek! Wouldn't it be smarter to put them on meds rather than putting their kind in office?

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

At the end of the day

Tonight's GOP debate from CA -- Liveblogged by Josh Marshall here and here.

Debate headline: McCain and Romney spar bitterly in GOP debate

Edwards has left the building -- Good-bye, John, and good luck! Here's to hoping someone is smart enough bring you on board somehow, some way... if that's what you want. Best wishes to Elizabeth, too.

Ed Kilgore offered some thoughts on " Why Edwards Lost" vs. Jonathan Cohn on " Why John Edwards Won."

Speculation over who will benefit from presidential candidate drop-outs.

Polls for 13 Super Tuesday states: The Democratic frontrunners -- Clinton ahead in AL, AZ, CA, MA, MO, NJ, NY, OK, and TN. Obama ahead in IL and by a nose in GA. Clinton and Obama are neck and neck in CO, CT. Click the link for GOP results and caveats. New state polls to come in 24 hours at Pollster Blog. With John Edwards having withdrawn, polls can change dramatically. So beware. There are still a lot of "undecideds." Wheeeee-oooooo! It's a horse race!

He's better than AbuGonzales but -- AG Mukasey dodged and weaved again on whether waterboarding is torture and he "got a harsh reception on Wednesday from senators of both parties, who used his appearance on Capitol Hill to accuse the Bush administration yet again of contempt for the rule of law and American values." NYT

Krugman on today's GDP report and "three reasons" to withhold conclusions on "whether a recession or recession-like period has started."

Rove & Zelikow -- Emptywheel: "By this point, it should surprise no one that Karl Rove does a lot of dirty business using his phone and blackberry. Apparently, that extends to softening the reports of the 9/11 Commission.... ...Rove carried on back-channel discussions with Philip Zelikow, the Commission's Executive Director."

Conservatives and fascism by David Neiwert at Orcinus.

Bipartisanship -- What does it mean in D.C.? Greenwald explained it's "already rampant in Washington" and it happens when "enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree." See Glenn's list of "bipartisan" lawmaking.

Another Repub says no -- Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) will not seek reelection. "There are now 28 House GOPers vacating their seats." (h/t Logan)

Speaking of the GOP exodus -- " 'The open-seat situation is so lopsided as to deny Republicans any chance of taking back the House in 2008,' said David Wasserman, who analyzes House races for The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan publication." Furthermore, "Republicans face a worrisome financial gap in comparison to House Democrats" fundraising. Ending 2007: Democrats -- $35 million cash, $1.3 million debt. Repubs -- $5 million cash, $2 million debt.

Predatory mortgage lenders -- The FBI is investigating 14 "companies, including some of the world’s largest banks..." John Amato provided commentary and video.

Suicidal soldiers -- "Suicides among active-duty soldiers in 2007 reached their highest level since the Army began keeping such records in 1980, according to a draft internal study... Last year, 121 soldiers took their own lives, nearly 20 percent more than in 2006.... At the same time, the number of attempted suicides or self-inflicted injuries in the Army has jumped sixfold since the Iraq war began." Thursday WaPo

Outposts in Iraq -- In an effort to firm up security, "Maj. Gen. Jeffery W. Hammond said he would increase the number of garrisons in [Baghdad] from 75 to 99 by June... ...[M]eanwhile, the remains of 19 people -- 10 heads and nine intact corpses -- were discovered in the town of Muqdadiyah in Diyala province, northeast of the capital, police said. Elsewhere, officials said a suicide car bomber in the northern city of Mosul injured at least 15 people."

Dowd and Brooks -- Echidne unveiled the NYT columnists' codewords about "gender stereotypes" and Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Fickle Tweety competed with Bloody Bill for the title, Wrongest Wingnut of All. His past praise of Rudy and what a diff a day makes at TP.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

The Problem With Conservatives

Did anyone else read that opinion piece by David Brooks in the NYT today (Friday)? I thought it was pretty good. It’s not really anything new, per se, and I know that articles on how the current trend of mainstream conservatism in the United States is betraying conservative roots are about a dime a dozen. However, rarely do these pieces really delve into where the roots of conservatism lay short of digging up the corpse of Ronald Reagan or diving into some quasi-anarchist-libertarian tirade.

I’ve never really considered myself a conservative, in any sense of the word. I like Locke and Rousseau when it comes to the classical liberal-conservative schism, and I like New Deal Welfare Liberalism over Herbert Hoover stand-offish neo-liberalism (i.e. “small government” Reagan/Thatcher rugged individualism). However, I think there’s an important role to play for classically conservative (and hell, maybe even neo-liberal) factions when it comes to developing public policy. As much as I prefer progressivism as a general rule, the restraint offered by Burke and Oakeshott do, I think, provide a framework for maintaining a “steady ship of state” and “strong social fabric.” While Burke is a little too elitist (and generally undemocratic) for me, and Oakeshott defends the status quo, I think, to a fault, it is important to remember that if something “ain’t broke” one shouldn’t try to fix it.

The problem with Republicans, though, according to Brooks and, as he points out, Andrew Sullivan, George Will, and William F. Buckley, is that they have forgotten what it means to be a conservative. Instead of focusing on steadying the nation (and indeed, touting the idea of an American nation), they have adopted revolutionary methods to effect change, no matter the possible negative externalities. It’s too bad, really, because when one half of the political culture goes bat shit, it bodes poorly for the entire polity. But, I suppose, that’s what happens when the Republican leadership refuses to challenge the neoconservative factions lead by Bill Kristol, and that nut job Norman Podhoretz.

I think, though, that one of Brooks’ more significant points is when he points to the creedalization of conservatism in America:

When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives
built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a
creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and
others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.

The problem with creeds, though, is that they are non-negotiable. Conservatives have made every point of policy these days a part of their most basic political philosophies; they’ve elevated these policy positions to a religious status. It’s no longer a matter of debating the most efficient income tax rate to promote responsible public budgeting while giving the middle-class room to grow. Tax policy has become a commandment: thou shall not progressively tax, for it is the flat tax which pleases Steve Forbes. Everything is a fight to the death; everything is about undercutting substantive fairness. Nothing about the modern conservative movement touts incremental change – start wars to (ostensibly) promote democracy, or trade, or to open new markets, over turn 50 years of racial integration policy in one fell swoop, and deport 12 million human beings who are integrated into our communities, society, and economy.

While I empathize with Andrew Sullivan in this regard, that’s what happens when one fails to balance principles and convictions with political success and party identification. We progressives, though, would do well to remember that as we select our nominee for 2008.

(Hat Tip: Tzepish)

Note: I had some problems posting this the first time. The time stamp reflects the updated version.

There's more: "The Problem With Conservatives" >>

The Hunters v. The Herd

A few days ago I wrote a short note entitled "Is American empire the end of American Democracy?" That note was really intended to point readers to a longer and much better essay by Chalmers Johnson entitled Can We End the American Empire Before It Ends Us? In preparing that note, I actually read Johnson's article. In reading the article I learned some things. I had to interact with the written word. I had to think.

I mention all this because like a lot of folks, including Blue Girl, I have been wondering why the left is winning the Internet revolution? Why are the conservatives generally struggling with the Internet?

First of all, I am not at all sure all conservatives are struggling with the Internet. As I point out a couple of posts below, Ron Paul isn't having much trouble with the Internet. Steve Jeffery is accurate when he says:

In the past week, Ron Paul's website received more traffic than those of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards (Obama only recently took the lead by a hair). His videos are among the most-viewed on YouTube and popular social news site Digg.com is literally choked with Ron Paul-themed articles and comments.

The conservatives who are struggling are the movement conservatives currently in power--The Karl Rove/American Enterprise Institute/William Kristol/Fox News conservatives (lets call them neo-cons.) To understand why they are struggling we have to examine why they were so successful. It has been argued many, many times that they are successful because they pioneered and mastered talk radio. That's partly true, but what they really mastered was the "sound bite" and the 10 second "video clip." They learned far better than their counterparts on the left just how to use the medium of television advertising. Nothing more than 30 seconds. The shorter the better. A quick hit, then move on.

Above all else they learned message control--how to keep repeating the sound bites over and over again. They gained control of television, playing the same video over and over again. They ruined Howard Dean's 2004 run by playing "the scream" over and over again without context. Conservatives are still doing well with people who gain most of their news via television and talk radio.

Where the neo-cons are failing is with the growing percentage of the population that is no longer satisfied with sound bites. Many of those people learn most of their news reading it on the Internet. The neo-cons are struggling with the Internet.

How is the Internet different? The principal difference is the difference between hunting and grazing. Every year people go deer hunting. Every year to be successful deer hunters have to carefully watch for signs. They hunt for subtle movements. Moments are spent contemplating this movement or that. Some things are dismissed. Even though many hunters don't move for hours, hunting is very active.

Grazing is different. When I look out my window, or at a television, I am just grazing. Information is passively entering my brain. I might have an emotional reaction to a sunset or I might see a car turn the corner. I might react to something I see, but like a herd animal reacting to a running lion, my reaction is thoughtless. In no way am I hunting. Ever try remembering any of Jay Leno's jokes 5 minutes after his monologue. Me neither. The joke comes in to my brain, before I have time to really think, I laugh and he moves to the next joke. Listening to his monologue is very passive. It is brain candy.

The user of the Internet has to read. Reading is a powerful form (maybe the most powerful form) of active watching. It is a form of hunting. It invites thought. It is done at the pace of the reader. He can read fast or slow depending on his mood or needs. The Internet reader expects footnotes. He can follow links to back-up material.

The sound bite on the other hand is totally controlled. A quick hit and then move along to the next "sound bite." It is completely passive. You are not invited to reflect--to think. Like Leno's joke it is here one second and gone. Ever see references to supporting material in an advertisement. Even if they exist they go so fast you can't catch them.

This brings this long post back to Ron Paul. In particular it brings us back to the reaction Rudy Guiliani and Fox News are receiving among Internet readers to their response to Ron Paul's "controversial" comment. During and after the last debate Guiliani, Fox News and the Republican establishment essentially called Paul a traitor for making the comment that we really ought to look at what America has done in the middle east to encourage attacks like 9/11. Over the past few days, people on the Internet are asking what is wrong with looking back and learning? That idea is gaining traction among Internet readers. Paul is winning on the Internet front. This morning Ben Schwartz went so far as to turn Guiliani's comments back on him. Schwartz called him a professional victim just like cable news's Nancy Grace. He chided Guiliani for knowing so little about his signature issue-9/11. We on the Internet are readers. We are hunters. We don't like victims, and we think that people who can't learn from the past are losers.

Before you get too smug just remember, human beings are omnivores (both hunters and grazers.) You and I are little different from any other member of our herd.

Please post your comments on this issue. I would love to hear from you.

UPDATE: Both bmaz and Jo Etta at Change for Missouri make some great points. You might want to take a look at their comments.

There's more: "The Hunters v. The Herd" >>

Current Limbaugh Contact Information

The post below links to out of date contact information for Rush. Here is his current information. If you elect to write, be polite. Just tell him he is wrong and why.

Rush Limbaugh
rush@eibnet.com

Premiere Radio Networks
Premiere
Radio Networks

Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.
15260 Ventura Blvd. 5th Floor
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

Main: (818)377-5300
Fax: (818)377-5333
Toll Free: (800)533-8686

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1-800-282-2882
rush@eibnet.com
fax: 212-563-9166

The Rush Limbaugh Show
1270 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020

If you are wondering why I didn't just update my previous post, well I believe this is an issue we bloggers should take on. Both Rush and Newt Gingrich are working hard to tie the word "liberal" to Virginia Tech. One of them working the angle might be an aberration. Both of them? Well that implies that someone has decided people are viewing the word "liberal" a little more favorably than they should. Their branding of "liberal" and liberals is fading. That is bad for them. They know it. "Conservatism" is so weak intellectually that conservatives can compete only when "liberalism" is sufficiently diminished. What better way to refresh their brand than by tying the word to the Virginia Tech massacre.

There's more: "Current Limbaugh Contact Information" >>

Issue Framing and Exaggerations

One of the biggest problems Democrats have had in terms of pushing an agenda over the last 10 years has been, in my opinion, their inability to frame their issues. Issue framing is probably the most important aspect of successful marketing. Or instance, anti-tax conservatives have always had a serious problem with the Estate Tax. Of course, many of them are super rich, but many of them just disagree with it on principle - these estates were built with wealth that had already been taxed, so the resources should not be taxed when passed down to beneficiaries. However, the Estate Tax has been largely popular amongst the majority of Americans because 1) the vast majority of people are not, nor will they ever be, subject to such a tax, and 2) because Americans tend to approve of progression tax schematics, particularly when the wealth transfer is unearned; i.e. inheritance, lottery winnings, capital gains, etc. To counter this sentiment, anti-tax forces have re-framed the issue from one of economic fairness and the taxing of wealth transfers, to one of liberals trying to tax death. Taxing DEATH. This is, of course, grossly disingenuous. The Estate Tax (or rather, death tax, as some would put it )does not tax death, but rather, taxes a transfer of wealth from one person to another - from one who earned it, to one who did not. The anti-Death tax movement has gained some steam as a result of this re-framing. Fortunately, Washington State voters voted down an initiative which would have done away with our state Estate Tax, the revenues of which are collected from no more than 250 families and which are diverted to public school funding.

Bill O'Reilly has engaged in a re-framing strategy in an effort to mitigate support for programs which are widely considered to be "leftist" programs. Of course, referring to them as "leftist" is ridiculous; something is only as right or as left as they are in relation to the general will of the American moderates, which is to say, the middle 60 percent or so. I would go so far as to say that embryonic stem-cell research is incredibly popular in this country, garnering support well over 60 percent. Many political hacks (as opposed to wonks) try to frame this as a liberal pet project, which is silly, because the vast majority of people support such research. However, by framing the issue in such a way as to make it appear "leftist", conservative forces are able to link it to other, more controversial issues, like abortion or social welfare, or whatever. O'Reilly uses his radio and TV shows to this end pretty constantly. His whole "Culture War" thing attempts to further solidify issues into certain classes as secular-progressive (aka liberal/Democratic) or Traditionalist (aka conservative/Republican). By using a taxonomy which creates dichotomous classes of issues, O'Reilly is able to associate unrelated issues with each other, and thus mitigate support for one issue by focusing on its association with others. He does this primarily with silly language. For instance, he refers to embryonic stem-cell research as "fetal stem-cell research" which is, of course, ridiculous because the stem-cells are not harvested from fetuses, but rather, embryos. He does this to link stem-cell research to abortion in an effort to sway pro-stem-cell-research people who happen to be pro-life away from supporting stem-cell research.

Last night's "Talking Points Memo" on The O'Reilly Factor was a perfect example of how O'Reilly uses issue framing to manipulate how people examine these issues. My good friend Blaine, on his blog over at Dead Journal, has provided an excellent analysis of O'Reilly's segment, and illustrates how O'Reilly uses rhetoric to misrepresent the American left.

Check it out.

There's more: "Issue Framing and Exaggerations" >>