Looking For A Black Person

... in a sea of white:

A side effect of the wall-to-wall coverage: I've been stopped by several journalists anxious for reaction from a black Tea Party member. The guy from CNN looked so disappointed when I told him I was a working journalist, too.

And the prize goes to MSNBC, which found him first.

Our news media is so stupid.

(H/T, Kleinheider.)

Meet The New Dog

Yes, we took the plunge! This is Chaka, adopted from Bonaparte's Retreat, the wonderful animal rescue organization here in town founded by Emmylou Harris. Bonaparte's Retreat takes adoptable animals due to be euthanized at Metro Animal Control and gives them a second chance at finding a family.

Let me say she is adorable, sweet, playful, eager to learn, and in every regard an awesome dog. Of course, she's been with us all of four hours.

Cats are handling the new dog pretty well, mostly curiously cautious, or cautiously curious. Cleo the dog has ignored her most of the day, I think she's in denial. And Zelda the Wonder Dog, well, let's just say she's been giving me the hairy eyeball all afternoon.

Hey Ron Ramsey: I Think He’s Talking To You

President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast:

Tea Party Weirdos

Holy crap. Have you seen what’s happening at the big Tea Party Convention out at Opryland? It looks like someone lifted America’s political rock and all the wackos crawled out from underneath.

Pith has been covering the festivities. You’ve got yer gay bashing 10 Commandments judge railing against President Obama for sanctioning “Pride month”; you’ve got yer anti-U.N. tin-foil hat conspiracy nuts warning that liberals want to take away yer car and yer suburbs; you’ve got yer immigrant-bashing ex-Congress Critter claiming the president was elected by people who “can’t spell the word 'vote' or say it in English.” (Dude, did you see some of the signs your Tea Partiers cooked up this summer? Glass houses, buddy.)

These are the speakers, people. These are not the fringe selling buttons in the lobby. These are the movement's leaders. Think on that one for a while.

This isn’t a “tax protest,” it’s one giant anti-Obama hate-fest. They’re pissed because they LOST THE ELECTION. Get over it, people. It’s the same weirdos and wackos we saw last summer making the rounds on YouTube with their racist rants and comparisons of Obama to Hitler.

After they retreated to their holes I sorta forgot how far outside the mainstream they are, God help me. Hey what do you expect: when media outlets like CNN kept referring to them as a “populist movement” that was only partisan at “some rallies” clearly I'm not the only one who bought the spin.

I mean my God, these Tea Party organizers have done a masterful job of presenting their movement as some kind of anti-tax, anti-government spending groundswell that appeals to both left and right. Every media report I see mentions that “most” but not all of Tea Partiers identify themselves as “conservative.” Meanwhile, Tea Party organizers are doing their damnedest to present themselves as “non-partisan.”

But that's not what we're seeing in Nashville. What we're seeing is the underbelly of American conservatism. So to all of you national news media folks trying to cover this confederacy of dunces, I know you want to lump the disaffected left and the loony right into one big, tidy box of unhappy voters. But no, you cannot. We are not the same. The disaffected left and the Tea Party right have absolutely nothing in common! Got that? The disaffected lefties do not now nor never will agree with Tom Tancredo, Judge Roy Moore and the rest.

And here’s another piece of news which goes against the media’s prevailing “Tea Party ascendent” narrative: the Tea Party candidate in Missouri just got his ass handed to him in a special election for the state assembly. Ooops.

Would someone please knock me on the head and call for an intervention if I'm ever again tempted to muse how awesome it would be if the anti-corporate left joined forces with the Tea Party right. Cripes, who slipped the crack into my coffee that day?

I’m glad the Tea Partiers are here and I’m glad the national news media is here to see them in all their awful Obama-hate. These folks couldn’t be further on the fringe, and I hope their bizarre rantings about socialism and black helicopters serve as a wake-up call to us all.

Show Me The Money

Tea Partiers have arrived in Nashville for three days of hollering about government spending, which I find amusing. Just curious, folks: if the government doesn’t spend money at this moment in our economic crisis, who do you think will? Because near as I can figure, everyone else has hit their miser button. People are not spending money on anything, and neither are those institutions which pre-meltdown were the engines of our economy.

Let me explain. Mr. Beale and I have gone a few rounds with the bank recently as we try to complete a re-fi on the house. We started this process, I kid you not, back in August. I’ve owned two houses in my day, refinanced both, so this is my fifth turn around the home mortgage block and I’ve never been asked to jump through so many hoops or had so many bars moved on me before. We are not happy.

Keep in mind: I have excellent credit, no debt, and my house is still worth considerably more than what I’m asking from the bank. In other words, I’m among the least risky customers this major lending institution will see walk through its doors. Yet they are treating me like a low-life criminal. In fact, they are asking so many bizarre questions that I now suspect they are simply fishing for a reason to say no.

In short: if banks won’t give me a loan, they won’t give anyone a loan. They are holding onto their money with both hands, and they won’t cough up one dime.

And it gets worse. I’ve heard from business people in our community that they cannot get loans, either. And if a business can’t get a loan, then what will drive our economic recovery?

Yes, to a certain extent this re-settling has been long overdue. As a nation, we’ve floated on a sea of debt and promises for far too long, and it was bound to catch up with us. But I do think, as President Obama himself pointed out, that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It’s probably good that people are saving their money, that businesses are being challenged to use more real capital to finance whatever they want to do, that banks aren’t handing out loans to people who declared bankruptcy in the past 90 days. But by refusing to make even reasonable loans, it’s leading to unemployment and prolonging the economic collapse. Unemployed people do not spend money.

So who is at fault here? What the heck is going on? The banks are blaming the government, and the government is blaming the banks. And I have no clue which party is lying here, except to say in my own dealings with my own bank, they've behaved like huge dicks. I'm sure there is plenty of blame to spread around.

A prominent person in our local real estate world has said there is a new government rule limiting how vested a bank can be in one area of the economy when it comes to making business loans. So, for example, there’s a limit to how many real estate development loans a bank can make in one city, and because Nashville was such a real estate boom town, local banks are maxed out in this business sector. As a result, he says, he can’t get a loan for any development projects.

Now, let me say, that sounds like bullshit to me. But what do I know? Has anyone else heard that?

I bring that up because the Administration wants to funnel $30 billion worth of TARP funds to small community banks so they can make loans to small businesses. Problem is, the community banks don’t seem to want the money. They say they don’t need it and even if they did, there are too many “onerous restrictions" on the money to make it attractive. ABC News reported:

To entice community bankers to use TARP funds, says Mr. Merski, Congress would have to change restrictions on dividend payments, a provision that gives the government partial ownership in the recipient banks, and the cap on executive compensation.

"The key is to remove all those onerous restrictions," says Merski, who doubts Congress would agree to do so. "On top of that, the cost of the TARP funding is extremely expensive, so they would have to change all these rules and restrictions to make it viable."

Merski represents the Independent Community Bankers of America. I just want to call bullshit, bullshit, bullshit all over the place. What the hell? Can we get a straight answer here? I don’t think taxpayers want to see TARP funds used for executive bonuses and political contributions. That’s not onerous, it’s common sense. We don’t want to see TARP funds going to Dubai. That’s not an onerous restriction either.

Neither is paying interest, though that depends on how much interest has been charged. How about one percent? I’ll take one percent.

I’m just not getting what the complaints are about.

Our economy needs money, and the banks don’t seem to want to give it out. And let me add, if we hand over TARP funds to a community bank, what makes anyone think they will make the loans? The major institutions sure haven’t.

I’m getting pissed off here. And I’m not the only one. I’m sure we’ve all heard of the Move Your Money campaign. The movement is spreading: in New Mexico, two state legislators have proposed moving the state's $1.8 billion away from Bank of America to community banks. Ouch. Memo to BofA: keep pissing people off and you might find yourself small enough to fail.

But is there reason to think a community bank will behave any less dickish than a big national institution? Sounds like we’re hearing the same whining from the community banks that we heard from BofA.

In Oregon, gubernatorial candidate Bill Bradbury has suggested forming a state bank. His Bank of Oregon idea is very intriguing:

Under the proposal, all state government agencies would be required to deposit their funds in the bank. The lender would then invest the funds within the state, with the investments serving as an economic development tool. It would also attempt to turn a profit, like a typical commercial bank.

I like this idea. If the banks are saying the government is putting too many restrictions on them, then screw it. Let the government start its own bank to make loans.

Sound socialist? Meh. It’s worked for North Dakota for nearly 100 years.

Anyway, this post has rambled on long enough. But I'd really like to hear some ideas on how we move through this. Anyone?

Vote Murray Hill For Congress

Who is Murray Hill? Hah. Not a who but a what.

Hilarious.

Is Vanderbilt Tolerating Intolerance?

Uh-oh. Vanderbilt University is in a little bit of trouble with GLBT activists since this video started making the rounds:



Asked by a student whether he accepts or rejects that part of the Koran which calls for execution of practicing gays and lesbians, Vanderbilt’s Muslim chaplain Awadh A. Binhazim tried to pass the buck and say, well, Islam is not the only religion which has intolerant views towards gays and lebsians.

Binhazim also indicated it didn’t matter really since there is no such thing as a country which follows Islamic Law 100% of the time, that all Muslim countries follow a mixture of laws. The student pressed on, however, and Binhazim was forced to admit that homosexuality is punishable by death under Islamic Law.

Well, this is a bit of a pickle. I don’t know very much about Islam and have never read the Koran, but I don’t get the sense that Muslims are allowed to do too much interpretation of their holy text. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems that unlike Christianity, where the Bible is interpreted in hundreds of different ways and as a result there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, the Islamic faith is a little more rigid on that score. So while one can argue that there are Christian religious denominations that take a dim view of homosexuality, there are plenty of others that do not.

And I think that was the corner Binhazim got backed into here. He can't come out and say that some Koranic teachings are still valid while others are no longer abided in modern times, so he danced around it with his "mixture of laws" point.

Anyway, this blogger opines:

All of which has Vanderbilt racing to distance itself from Binhazim: "Vanderbilt University is dedicated to a policy of non-discrimination on the basis of race or sexuality," the school says in a statement. "Awadh A. Binhazim is not and has never been a Vanderbilt employee, and is not paid by the university. He is the university's Muslim chaplain under a working agreement that is similar to those signed with chaplains of other faiths at Vanderbilt. This working agreement requires Binhazim to observe Vanderbilt rules, including its non-discriminatory policies. Vanderbilt does not limit the free speech of its students, faculty, staff or its chaplains in any way."

Not limiting the free speech of its chaplains is a fantastic policy, and one we support at any school. But what would happen if a visiting chaplain came along and said his religion called for the extermination of Jews? Would Vanderbilt be letting him return to campus?

Of course there is no religion that calls for extermination of Jews so that’s a bit of a straw argument. And as a general principal I think it’s bad form to make people defend their religion. You shouldn’t have to defend why you accept or reject your religion, and your job shouldn’t be on the line when you can’t.

That said, when a religious teaching is itself intolerant, and calling for the execution of gays is certainly that, then people have every right to speak out. Especially when there have been news reports that gay teens are possibly being executed in Iran.

In Judeo-Christian religions we debate what the Bible says about anything and everything; indeed there are entire fields of study devoted to Biblical and Talmudic hermeneutics. But hermeneutic debates on cultural issues like homosexuality are never fruitful because a progressive Christian will never convince a fundamentalist that they are wrong, and vice versa. So we end up with this uncomfortable stalemate and endless bickering when cultural issues enter the public policy arena.

Where Islam is concerned, I just don’t know. Is there a Koranic hermeneutic discipline? Do people debate what the Koran actually says about homosexuality, what the intent of the text was or the context in which it was written? I don’t know. If anyone does, please enlighten me.

In the meantime, while I’m all for being tolerant and accepting of our nation’s religious diversity, I don’t think it’s a good idea to do so at the expense of our GLBT citizens. So I’m less concerned about Binhazim’s interpretation of Islamic Law than I am with how he would counsel someone on this issue.

We follow American laws here, not Islamic ones.

Just When You Thought Birtherism Is Dead

[UPDATE]:

For context on why the crackpot opinions of Tennessee's leading Republicans matters, read this from the Institute For Southern Studies: ANALYSIS: Southerners drive far-right of Republican Party. Excerpt:

On almost every issue, Southern Republicans are far to the right of their national GOP brethren. In fact, GOP Southerners appear to be the driving base for some of the most extreme views circulating in Republican circles today.

This is important for both Democrats and Republicans to recognize, especially when our media crows about what it means when a moderate Republican like Scott Brown to wins a Massachusetts Senate race. All Republicans are not alike, and as Southern GOPers get more extreme, some of that mud may sully the rest of the party. Meanwhile, Blue Dog Dems wishing to be more Republican-lite need to think very carefully about what it is they are signing on to.

-----------------------
So everyone is talking about Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey saying he doesn’t know if President Obama is a U.S. citizen or not. But Pith has posted the entire exchange, which I find even scarier:

The Obama birther who popped up with his question in this roomful of suits? Maclin Davis, the former attorney for the state Republican Party and a partner in the prestigious firm of Waller Lansden.

Here's the exchange:

Davis: Now since the Republicans control both houses of the Tennessee legislature, it seems to me that they might consider passing a state law that says in all future elections no candidate for president can be put on the ballot in Tennessee unless they produce positive proof they are a native-born citizen. If we had one like that a few years ago, we'd be a whole lot better off today. Is there any chance that you would consider that?

Ramsey: ... I suppose that every state could individually do that.

Davis: It seems like it would be really good if somebody would file a suit against our present president to get back all the money he's been paid as president on the grounds he's not a legitimate president since he's not a native-born citizen. The great preponderance of the evidence is he's not a citizen. ...

Maclin Davis, you scare the crap out of me. You’re one of the leading attorneys in this city, a leading figure with the state Republican Party, and you’ve embraced a fringe idea like birtherism to the point where you are calling for state legislators to enact actual legislation? And lawsuits?

So this is what the Tennessee Republican Party has become. The final repository of wackadoodle, a bunch of people who’ve drunk so much Kool-Aid that even the rantings of Orly Taitz makes more sense to them than the reality that they lost a national election to a black guy.

And by the way, birtherism isn’t the only wacko conspiracy theory Orly Taitz has embraced . She also believes Saudi Arabia owns Fox News, Hugo Chavez owns the software used on U.S. voting machines, and the House of Representatives is planning to build six labor camps.

I eagerly await the TN-GOP’s action on these items, too. Especially that voting machine thing.

They Think You’re Chumps

So apparently if you donated to Sarah Palin’s “SarahPAC” you basically just put Sarah Palin’s book on the New York Times best-seller list:

The former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate had her political organization spend more than $63,000 on what her reports describe as "books for fundraising donor fulfillment." The payments went to Harper Collins, her publisher, and in some instances to HSP Direct, a Virginia-based direct mail fundraising firm that serves a number of well-known conservative politicians and pundits.

Sarah PAC spent another $8,000 on colorful bookmarks designed by a Nashville-based event branding firm. And her committee paid her publisher $20,000 for what appears to have been the cost of sending her personal photographer and another aide along on her book tour. Those expenses are listed by the PAC as travel repayment to Harper Collins.

All of the purchases took place in November and December of 2009, the records show.

Oh, there’s always a Nashville connection!

Meanwhile, Salon.com reports:

In the last half of 2009, Palin's political action committee, SarahPAC, gave only $43,000 to Republican candidates for federal office. That money was spread over more than a dozen people.

So basically SarahPAC spent more money in two months promoting and publicizing Sarah Palin’s memoir than it did in six months promoting conservative candidates.

Okie dokie.

Meanwhile, we have Judson Phillips’ dubious “for profit” Tea Party convention fleecing people for their hard-earned cash.

Hey, Tea Party folks: someone thinks you’re stupid.

Why There's No Bipartisanship

Today YLF observes that Republicans have made zero concessions on any legislation, whereas Democrats continue to water down bill after bill in a vain hope for “bipartisanship.”

This is a complaint liberals have been making for years now, ever since 2007 when the purple bipartisan fairies started flying around Congress promising peace and humptiness and ponies forever, if only we could all work together. Problem is, Republicans don’t budge, Democrats fold like lawnchairs, and the legislation we get is Republican in policy with a Democratic label attached to it. The result is Democrats look like Republicans and voters wonder what the difference between the two parties is. How this is supposed to help the Democratic Party is beyond me.

I normally don’t watch the Sunday bobblehead shows, but Mr. Beale had Meet The Press on yesterday morning (until my yelling at the television caused him to turn the TV off, that is).

Here’s the part that I saw:

REP. BOEHNER:  Well, I'll give you an example.  Last year I told the president, you know, what--when we can be with you and when we agree with you, we will stand tall with you, as we did on Afghanistan, as we did on Iraq, as we did on things like teacher quality and a number of other areas.

Umm ... I don't think Rep. Boehner knows what "bipartisan" means. Standing with the president when you agree with him, oooh that's really bold. Of course, this is a feature not a bug of Republican politicians, as I’ve observed before here (to the point where one “Republican strategist” even noted that if a healthcare bill is supported by Olympia Snowe "it’s not really bipartisan”).

And then there's the second part of the Republican strategy that I think is really the key problem: robotically repeating lies about Democratic legislation to basically poison the discourse, making real bipartisanship impossible. I return to yesterday's transcript, and Rep. Boehner's quote:

But when it comes to, when it comes to health care, we could agree on a some commonsense steps to make our healthcare system work better.  But we are not going to put the government in charge of people's health care. And, and it, it's something that there's a fundamental difference here. And most of America has already said no to this big government takeover.

Rep. Boehner referred to a “big government takeover of health care” or “government-run health care” six times in under two minutes. David Gregory never once called him on it.

It’s not true, not even close to true--believe me, I wish it were (I wrote about this back in November, for anyone who wants to know what “government run healthcare” really looks like). Yet Boehner delivered his Frank Luntz-approved “big government” mantra over and over and over again, like the good Republibot he is. It's completely intentional, this repeating of scary words: repetition of certain key phrases and words is a Republican tactic to get their message ensconced in the public's mind. I don't know why Democrats never call them on it, but they don't.

And I realize this is not news. We've all written about these framing tactics, how Republicans are instructed to repeat certain Frank Luntz-approved words in every television appearance until they are heard so often, people like David Gregory don't even notice any more. Before long the Republican talking point becomes firmly ensconced in the American lexicon and a talking point is accepted as fact.

President Obama called the Republicans on this very tactic in his Q&A last week. It's very telling that despite that, Rep. Boehner continued to do it, and David Gregory continued to ignore it.

Continuing with this tactic of mischaracterizing Democratic initiatives as super-scary far left Communist/Socialist fringe ideas basically assures us that bipartisanship will never, ever happen. Because when one party so thoroughly demonizes the other party’s ideas as something dangerous to the Republic, you’ve basically made it impossible for members of your own caucus to support anything from the other side.

In other words: when you repeatedly refer to a healthcare bill that is a giveaway to big insurance companies as “a government takeover of healthcare,” then you have made it impossible for an Olympia Snowe to support it. And they’ve also made it impossible for Blue Dog Democrats to support it, because the meme has been so thoroughly ensconced in the public’s mind that the lie has become fact.

Again: I do not understand why Democrats did not call Republicans on this “government takeover of health care” lie (or any of the other lies they’ve propagated, for that matter). President Obama finally called the Republicans on this last week but it should have been done at the very beginning of this debate. Because if you really want bipartisanship, you need to first agree on the facts. There can be no bipartisanship when you can’t even agree on the basic facts at hand.

I don't know where this leaves us. I think voters are thoroughly sick of gridlock and partisan bickering, but waving a purple wand is not going to happen, either. The problems are bigger than just getting a couple Republican votes on a bill, or getting a couple of Republican ideas on a Democratic bill. The ways the parties operate has to change.