Karma Gets Focus On The Family

Focus On The Family has a $6 million budget shortfall this year, according to the AP, and has been forced to go begging to its donors yet again.

Aww. Can you hear me playing the world’s tiniest violin for you folks? No?

Last November, you may recall, the group was forced to trim 20% of its staff, after sinking $500,000 into California’s Prop 8 campaign. Well, they won that battle but it looks like they lost the war:

Focus on the Family also says it will no longer stage "Love Won Out" conferences, which promise to "help men and women dissatisfied with living homosexually understand that same-sex attractions can be overcome."

The events will go on, instead staged by Orlando, Fla.-based Exodus International.

I always say, karma’s a bitch!

The Return Of Phil Parlock

It just wouldn’t be a right wing-v-left wing campaign without an appearance by serial victim Phil Parlock! The Washington Times, in a lame effort to defend the right wing’s attack on 11-year old Julia Hall, has brought up this incident from the 2004 campaign:

Just because the Obama administration has an 11-year old asking a question about right wing meanies, doesn't mean friends of the left have patience for children of conservative activists either.  Remember this photo below?  This was taken in 2004 after conservative activist Phil Parlock and his three-year old daughter Sophia crossed paths with John Kerry supporting Union Democrats.

They grabbed the little girl's sign and tore it up.

Uh, yeah. When trying to defend the indefensible “you did it first!” is not usually the best argument.

Except in this case, we didn’t do it first. As was well documented at the time, Phil Parlock was a notorious serial victim, who claimed to have lost dozens of signs at the hands of big, mean union thugs going all the way back to 1996 when he alleged he was knocked to the ground for displaying a “Remember Vince Foster” sign at a Clinton rally. Attaturk at Rising Hegemon dug into the memory and found this quote:

"It must have been a strict Democrat who did this," Parlock said, feeling the red abrasions on his face. "Everyone with the exception of him was real peaceful about our protest."

At the time of the 2004 incident, Attaturk also noticed a striking resemblance between the alleged sign-ripping “union thugs” and one of the Parlock sons.

So thank you, Washington Times, for reminding us of this incident. As astroturf campaigns dominate the nightly news and tea shouters screetch that they want their country back after just eight months of an Obama presidency, it’s nice that you have reminded us of how low the right wing will stoop to flog its eternal victimization.

Can The GOP To Get Its Act Together?

Joan Walsh writes:

And unfortunately for Obama's dreams of bipartisanism, it's way past time for him to give up his hopes that he can bring "sensible" Republicans on board with a smart, fair bill.

Well, duh. That “bipartisan” ship sank before it ever left the harbor. The Republicans aren’t interested in bipartisanship or reforming healthcare, they’re interested in winning the 2010 midterm elections. Please don’t tell you’re just now cluing in to that reality.

What I want to know is, where are the “sensible Republicans,” anyway? Are they an endangered species? How much longer will the Republican Party allow stuff like this to represent their side of the healthcare debate?

Where are the grownups? Looks to me like there are none left in the GOP.

Doesn’t anyone at the GOP worry that with the tea-shouters and birthers on TV morning, noon and night defining the opposition, these folks might alienate that coveted voting block known as the “undecideds”? The “independents”? That great, glorified “middle” of the American electorate?

Yesterday I went to visit Sen. Lamar Alexander’s office to voice my support for healthcare reform and a public option. Several other women were there with the same message. And one asked why Alexander has basically been absent on the healthcare issue. I thought that was a damn good question.

I don’t agree with Sen. Alexander on most things but he’s one of those “elder statesmen” of the Republican Party who can usually be relied upon to offer a measured perspective on the issues. And yet, people like Alexander seem to be sitting on the sidelines.

Instead we have Sarah Palin and her fictitious “death panels,” and Newt Gingrich coming to her defense. We have folks going on cable news claiming it’s unconstitutional for the president’s advisers to be named "czars." Another protester told Fox News that Nancy Pelosi dispatched goons to his house in the middle of the night.

This is some serious crazy, and I don't mean that in the metaphorical sense. I’d blame the media for sensationalizing the fringe except even the “serious” people on the right are coming off like loons.

Arthur Laffer is seemingly unaware that Medicaid and Medicare are government programs. Investors Business Daily claimed in an op-ed this week that:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Apparently they were completely unaware that Hawking is a British citizen, born and bred. Remind me not to take investment advice from these clowns.

Even a once-"sensible" Republican like Chuck Grassley looks ridiculous when he says:

"We should not have a government program that determines if you're going to pull the plug on grandma."

Um, WTF? Well, Senator, you’d be thrilled to know that no one is advocating such a program. Can we have a serious conversation now?

Good grief. Pardon me for concern-trolling here, but if I were a strategist with the Republican Party I’d be deeply worried. Y'all are looking like a crazy train that no one in their right mind would want to board. You think this is going to bring you an election victory in 2010?

Now would be a good time for someone to step forward and be the voice of reason, someone like a Lamar Alexander. The fact that no one has is more than a little puzzling.

Because People Are Stupid

Another Nashville gun nut defines stupidity and consequently a young man is in critical condition:

Right after 9 p.m. Tuesday, police said the 44-year-old owner of Chico's Market was showing his employees his new semi-automatic 9 mm pistol, when he shot a 23-year-old employee in the stomach. According to the owner, he took the clip out, but he forgot there was a bullet in the chamber.

Emergency officials transported the 23-year-old to Vanderbilt where he was listed in critical but stable condition Wednesday morning.

So far, no charges have been filed and police were continuing their investigation.

Don’t know why you have to actually pull the trigger when you are showing off your new toy.

Of course, accidents happen! Even to people who supposedly know better, like this Memphis Police Academy instructor. Look what happened yesterday:

A male recruit at the Memphis Police Academy was accidentally shot in the arm during a training exercise this afternoon, authorities said.

The recruits were being taught how to draw with the non-shooting hand, according to a statement from department spokeswoman Officer Karen Rudolph.

At about 1:15 p.m., an instructor drew a weapon and the gun discharged. The recruit was struck in the left wrist and was treated and released at the Regional Medical Center at Memphis.

Jeez. They are doing training exercises with loaded weapons?

I predict as more people start carrying their guns around to more places, accidents due to careless stupidity will become more common.

The Morality Of Taxes, Part 2

One of my conservative commenters wrote this a few threads ago:

At least he's asking for actual charity rather than expecting the government to come to his rescue at taxpayer expense.

This is such a common refrain among conservatives: “Why should my money pay for his/her/your/their [fill in the blank] ...”

Well, there are a lot of reasons why. For one thing, it’s not in the nation’s best interests to have large numbers of poor, starving, homeless, sick, uneducated, [fill in the blank] people in our communities. It’s a security issue, it’s an economic issue, and it’s a quality of life issue. And the most efficient way to handle this is through taxes which pay for social services. Relying on charity, as has been observed in the past, denies the constant of human nature: greed.

And for people of faith, it’s a moral issue. I wrote about the morality of taxes back in 2007. And now I direct you to one of my favorite faith bloggers, The Search for Integrity, which has been on my blogroll since almost day one. He has something to say about the theology of taxes:

On whether taxpayers have responsibility for the well-being of their neighbors, by means of government programs:

In the theocratic state envisioned by the Hebrew prophets (or even, in their critique of every nation) the responsibilities of kings was clear:  plead the cause of the fatherless and widow, demand justice for the poor.  See, for example, Psalm 82:3-4:  Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless, maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.  Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Nations were judged by how well their rulers implemented these simple principles.

In the United States of America, “we the people” (the voters and, yes, the taxpayers) are sovereign.  Therefore “we, the people” are under divine judgment if we fail to use our sovereign power to take care of the elderly, the disabled, the orphan and widows of our world.  “We, the people” as sovereign refers to our corporate role as king, which is to say, the government.  It is laudable for individual persons to do what they can by means of “charity,” but “we, the people” are not just an aggregate of individual persons.  We, together, are king, and as such are answerable to God for how well we rule.

Okay, usually I save the religious stuff for Sundays but it seems timely in light of the arguing about healthcare that’s taking place right now. The theological argument probably won’t mean much to most of the folks who visit this blog but it means something to me and it’s important element to the whole healthcare debate. Healthcare is a moral imperative and it’s an ethical issue. It’s why, as CNN has finally noticed, faith groups have joined the chorus for healthcare reform.

The moral argument isn't one we hear much of in this debate. That's curious, because our news media has not hesitated to trot out fundiegelical wackadoodles every time they need to present their idea of "modern American Christianity" on issues like gay marriage. But when it comes to a real moral issue--a war, say, or healthcare for all--suddenly people of faith aren't deemed relevant to the conversation.

Odd.

My friend Therevr offers a very concise Biblical interpretation in defense of government programs like healthcare and welfare. Conservative faith groups like the Family Research Council which oppose healthcare reform offer nothing but lies about government-funded abortion and other fearmongering. That's not very Biblical to me, but it's about what I've come to expect from the Religious Right.

If Only They Were In A Position To Do Something About That Pre-Existing Condition Stuff

This ad from America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) has always pissed me off. Especially the part where they say:

...and the words “pre-existing condition” become a thing of the past.

Psssst!!! Hey, AHIP! You know, you guys don’t need a freaking act of Congress to stop using “pre-existing conditions” as an excuse to deny coverage to your customers. You could just .... stop. All on your own! Y'all ever think about that?

The fact that you haven’t stopped abusive policies like denying coverage based on “pre-existing conditions” is one reason why we’re faced with Congressional action in the first place. And it is yet more proof that the glorious “free hand of the market” is not sufficient motivation for corporations to do the right thing.

Of course, the healthcare/insurance game is rigged from the get-go. Anyone who has a “pre-existing condition” is intimately familiar with that. If you are denied coverage because of your “pre-existing condition,” it’s not like there is a cornucopia of other insurance options from which you can choose. Nine times out of 10 your options are to go without, or go to an emergency room. Depending on how severe your “pre-existing condition” is, you can go untreated for the five-, seven- or however many years required before your policy will cover it as something “new.” But if you are in the full throes of breast cancer or MS or anything else, sorry.

So thank you America’s Health Insurance Plans for reminding us why you are the problem, not the solution. Thank you for proving our point: that reform requires a public option, because you could stop this “pre-exisiting condition” BS right now, and yet you state in your ads that you want Congress to fix it for you. How’s that for irony?

I suffer no allusions that AHIP wants Congress to reform our healthcare system. I think it’s all theater. This is all part of the Frank Luntz-advised message machine which warned Republicans to appear to be on the side of reform, because reform is a popular idea. So while groups like AHIP run feel-good ads claiming they support “bipartisan reform” (even though they could change many of the very policies which have caused this crisis to begin with), on the other hand they are working behind the scenes to make sure nothing changes at all.

Amazing that they not only think they can get away with this, but that they actually are getting away with this.

For now.

A Tale Of Two Healthcare Activists

Perhaps the Tea Party set rallying against healthcare reform would like to donate some money to pay Kenneth Gladney’s medical bills. Because someone is going to have to.

Gladney is the conservative protestor who was injured outside a town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO):

The irony is that Gladney’s situation underscores the vital need for health care reform. He was recently laid off and lost his insurance (14,000 Americans suffer a similar fate each day). Because he has no affordable health care option available, Gladney is now soliciting donations to pay his medical expenses.

[...]

Under the House’s health care proposal, Gladney would be guaranteed a coverage option and would likely receive a subsidy to purchase affordable health care.

That’s just precious. It’s like Joe The Plumber all over again, who finally admitted to being a welfare recipient, not once but twice. And let me say, while conservatives have blamed SEIU for the attack, one of the men involved who was there has another version of events:

But Elston McCowan, an SEIU staffer, said Gladney was actually an instigator. McCowan accused Gladney of attacking him as he walked to his car. McCowan said he suffered a dislocated shoulder.

"Out of nowhere, the guy just assaults me," said McCowan, 47, of St. Louis.

The SEIU says the Tea Party organizers created “a hostile atmosphere.” I just have to say, as the rhetoric from the right escalates, people are going to get hurt.

One thing that’s not disputed about those injured in Missouri? The guy who works for the union won’t need to go begging for donations pay his medical bills.

Tea Party activist Kenneth Gladney, on the other hand, does. And if that doesn’t tell you everything you need to know about the two sides of this issue, I don’t know what will.

Don’t Talk To Me About Death Panels

Don’t talk to me about death panels, Sarah Palin.

You, who so carelessly bolstered a lie about healthcare reform to score a cheap political point; you, the most craven of political opportunists, who fearmongers about some dystopian socialist/fascist fantasyland; you, who earlier this year were only too happy to accept free medical, dental and veterinary care from the U.S. military for Alaska’s remote villages; you, dear lady, are an idiot.

In your free market wonderland everyone somehow manages to get healthcare, even those who are poor or live in isolated areas, though the poor and isolated in your own state required assistance from the federal government.

And despite all of this, you appear blithely unaware that the free market healthcare system we have now does, indeed, have “death panels.” I’ve been part of a death panel conversation. I know about death panels.

You have no idea what it’s like to be called into a sterile conference room with a hospital administrator you’ve never met before and be told that your mother’s insurance policy will only pay for 30 days in ICU. You can't imagine what it's like to be advised that you need to “make some decisions,” like whether your mother should be released “HTD” which is hospital parlance for “home to die,” or if you want to pay out of pocket to keep her in the ICU another week. And when you ask how much that would cost you are given a number so impossibly large that you realize there really are no decisions to make. The decision has been made for you. "Living will" or no, it doesn't matter. The bank account and the insurance policy have trumped any legal document.

If this isn’t a “death panel” I don’t know what is.

So don’t talk to me about “death panels” you heartless, cruel, greedy sons of bitches, who are only too happy to keep the profits rolling in to the big insurance companies while you spout your mealy-mouthed bumper sticker slogans about the evils of socialism. You don't even know what socialism is. You don't know what government healthcare is. You have no fucking clue about anything except that you lost the last election and you're pissed off.

You are young. Your parents are still alive. You don’t know enough to take any of this seriously. It's all an exercise in political theater for you. But that will change. We all get older. The time will arrive, someday, when you are tasked with caring for someone you love who is seriously ill. You will be ushered in to that sterile hospital conference room with an administrator you do not know, where you are told to "make plans" for a day you never hoped to see. And then you will get your education.

If on that day you still think the healthcare system we have now is fabulous and worth lying, cheating and threatening people to maintain, I can only conclude that you lack even the tiniest grain of a soul.

Three Time Offender

The gun nuts are always saying we don’t need more gun laws, we just need to enforce the ones we already have. I’d like to suggest we start with dealers like Wisconsin’s Eric Thompson, who armed the Pennsylvania gym shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter and the Northern Illinois University shooters.

Wow, does he get some kind of prize for that?

The Gun Guys blog reports:

Now, he has done it again. The tortured misogynist who killed three and wounded nine in a Pittsburgh area gym this week was another customer of TGSCOM, the online arms warehouse that Thompson operates, buying a magloader and a high-capacity magazine from the dealer last year.

Once again, Thompson is telling journalists how upset he is, and how the incident proves that potential victims should arm themselves, to protect themselves from killers. The victims the Pennsylvania killer shot were participating in an aerobics class.

Yes, tucking a pistol in my spandex before heading for pilates class is surely the workable solution.

If bars and restaurants and servers can be held responsible for drunk drivers who were over-served, then I don't see why gun dealers cannot be held responsible for failing to do an adequate background check not once, not twice, but three times. Of course, gun dealers are sued all the time by victims of the people they've armed. It just seems like someone who armed psychotic killers three times in the past few years should face some repercussions for their irresponsible behavior. Instead, he's telling folks that since he's arming the psychos, the non-crazies better arm themselves from him, too.

Of course George Sodini is the poster boy for everything wrong with our shoot ‘em up gun laws:

“The 48-year-old Pennsylvania gym shooter had been issued a concealed weapons permit. The high-capacity magazine he used would have been illegal for sale in the U.S. under the Federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004,” Helmke said. “Why do we make it so easy for these dangerous to get these dangerous weapons? We need to be asking this.”

Why, indeed.

Y’all must be so proud of yourselves.

When “Controversial” Really Means “Gay”

Apparently a strip club with a "controversial new twist” has one Metro Nashville councilman just "sick":

Metro Councilman Michael Craddock does not want Nashville to become known as host to one of the south's only male strip clubs.

"I'm sick to my stomach - I'm just absolutely sick," said Craddock.

"It's different for a man to show himself than a woman. It's another step in the wrong direction."

It’s different? Really? How, exactly?

Care to elaborate, Councilman?

And what’s this “another step” stuff? What other steps in the “wrong direction” have we taken here in Nashville lately that make you just “sick”?

I have some ideas: I’m thinking Craddock is worried about the whole “gay” thing. I think what’s different about when a man “shows himself” is that there might be other men watching and that just freaks Councilman Braddock out to no end. Feel free to correct me, Councilman Braddock, but I think it's the "gay" thing that has you "sick." Am I right?

Owners of the new club, to be called “Arrow Nashville,” say they are not a “gay” strip club, however; patrons of both sexes will be welcome.

I dunno, I’ve been to one strip club in my life, in New Orleans (of course). I was with a mixed group of people, and the women said if we were going to do this wacky thing we by God were going to make sure we went to one of the “unisex” strip joints so that we could enjoy the show, too. The male dancer was obviously gay but he had far more talent than the female dancer, who seemed strung out on something and not very aware of her surroundings. The whole thing was rather seedy, the drinks were watered down, and when we left about 30 minutes later I felt like I never needed to see another strip show again.

But to each his or her own. Councilman Braddock is looking pretty ridiculous here. He needs to explain his idea that it’s somehow one thing when a woman takes her clothes off for money and something else entirely when a man does it. What exactly is the difference, if it's not fear of the gay?

And I’m going to scold NewsChannel5 here too, which seems to precede every story involving anything that might be vaguely gay with the word “controversial.”

I’m not seeing anything controversial in this story. A councilman is behaving like an ass. So what else is new?