Nick Kristof Is Very Serious. Really.

Someone must have sent a World Vision brochure to New York Times columnist Nick Kristof because in today’s column he makes the startling discovery that there are Christian groups operating charities in Third World countries! Oh my God, stop the presses.

Kristof is one of the most annoying of the media elite, not just because he has defended Third World sweatshops in a dozen or more columns (“Hey! People are lining up for those jobs!”). No, he annoys me primarily because he has such a myopic view of the world. His opinions are clearly shaped by his position of privilege and his rounds of the cocktail party circuit. Kristof sits atop an ivory tower and as a result, his Very Serious New York Times columns are riddled with stereotypes. Worse, they carry that unmistakeable stench of superiority.

Today’s is no different. Indeed, he lost me at hello:

For most of the last century, save-the-worlders were primarily Democrats and liberals. In contrast, many Republicans and religious conservatives denounced government aid programs, with Senator Jesse Helms calling them “money down a rat hole.”

Over the last decade, however, that divide has dissolved, in ways that many Americans haven’t noticed or appreciated. Evangelicals have become the new internationalists, pushing successfully for new American programs against AIDS and malaria, and doing superb work on issues from human trafficking in India to mass rape in Congo.

”Many Americans,” Nick? You mean you, right? Right away he pisses me off by lumping everyone into two categories. There are no liberal or Democratic evangelicals in Kristof’s world, nor are there any Republicans who care about foreign aid. It’s all one big unhappy stereotype.

Please don’t tell Kristof that World Vision, the evangelical Christian organization he devotes much of his column to, was founded in 1950. Please also don’t tell him about groups like Sojourners, the evangelical liberal group founded by Jim Wallis in 1971.

Here’s another one:

Some liberals are pushing to end the longtime practice (it’s a myth that this started with President George W. Bush) of channeling American aid through faith-based organizations.

”Some liberals,” Nick? Who? Someone you talked to at a cocktail party, perhaps? Or an anonymous blog commenter?

Is there a bill? A movement? An organization backing this? Anything? Not that I’ve heard. You know, there will always be debate on blogs about this but the reality is, every policy maker from the local level on up to the State Department knows that charitable groups do the heavy lifting when it comes to aid. They have to. Tea Baggers' lamentations notwithstanding, our government is not that big. Be it homeless shelters in your local town or schools and orphanages in Africa, NGOs do the work. And the reality is, most of those groups are religious. This is not new, it's been this way for decades. I guess Kristof was the last to get the memo.

No one is seriously talking about doing away with government funds for these groups, it would be impossible to do so. But Kristof probably talked to someone at a cocktail party and therein lies the basis of his column.

And then we get to that telltale Kristofian air of superiority. Folks, I bring you last night's Tweet:



Snooty and sanctimonious? Kristof must have been looking in a mirror.

Girl Scout Cookie Recall

Heh. And they all laughed 10 days ago when I said Girl Scout cookies sucked. They not only suck, they stink:

A Kentucky bakery recalled one variety of Girl Scout cookie this week after customers complained of a "foul smell and taste," the Associated Press reports. The recall affects Lemon Chalet Cremes distributed in Maryland and two dozen other states.

The baker, Louisville-based Little Brownie Bakers, traced the problem to a breakdown of oils. They say:

No one has gotten sick and the company contends that the cookies, though "not up to our quality standards," are safe to eat.

Well isn't that special. Those oils that are breaking down, unfortunately, are trans fats. The nutritional label notwithstanding, food manufacturers are able to make their foods appear healthier on their packaging by manipulating the portion size.

Food blog Fork & Bottle explains:

Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram per serving as zero on the Nutrition Facts panel. As a result, consumers are seeing products that list zero gram transfat on the label, while the ingredient list will have "shortening" or "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" on it."

The serving size might be as small as two cookies, but let's be real: no one eats just two.

Anyway, the food blog makes suggestions on other ways to support the Girl Scouts besides buying cookies. The easiest thing is to make a donation and tell your scout to keep the cookies.

Personally, while I'm concerned about the trans fats and high fructose corn syrup, I'm even more annoyed that despite all this toxic crap the cookies still taste bad. If you're going to pollute your body at least you should get something enjoyable out of it.

The Anti War Movement Is Still Alive

Karl Rove spoke at UC Santa Barbara Thursday night, hawking his new book and sparking an anti-war protest. You can see video of the protest here:



I have to say I'm very encouraged to see the anti-war movement is still active. I had my doubts. President Obama didn't start the Iraq War but he hasn't done enough to end it, and he's escalated the Afghanistan War, resulting in escalated bloodshed among civilians. This is wrong, people.

We're coming up on the seventh anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. As they are every year, protests are being planned all across the country. Ask the Great Gazoogle for the one nearest you and make your voice heard.

Choosing Coffee Over Tea

Funny how the universe works: on Wednesday I ran into an old friend at the grocery store and she immediately started to talk about politics, how disgusted she was by the outlandish rhetoric coming from the Tea Party right, and her frustration with Republican Party obstructionism and Democratic spinelessness.

She said (I swear to God I am not making this up): “I would literally follow anyone right now if they were sane.”

And lo and behold, the Coffee Party has arrived:



You can learn more at their Facebook page.

From what I can tell, the emphasis seems to be on “civility.” It will be interesting to see how long that lasts. I like the emphasis on being rational, on “sanity.” I think one of the problems with the Democratic Party is that people have been trying to be too polite; we waste so much time and energy trying not to offend anyone we end up appearing mushy. Sometimes you just have to tell it like it is, whether someone’s feelings get hurt or not. Hopefully this movement won’t be like that. There's nothing worse than weak coffee.

Coffee Party founder Annabel Park, in a live chat at the Washington Post, was asked if she saw common ground (no pun intended) with the Tea Party. She replied:

It is true that both groups feel that the government is failing us in many ways. I think if we examine the language that some in the Tea Party have been using, there are some things that are alienating to many of us in the Coffee Party: the extreme rhetoric, and the hostility toward the federal government. We would have to ask them tone this down, so that we can focus on actively listening to one another and problem-solving.

Well, we saw how well that went yesterday at the Health Care Summit.

You know, once upon a time I thought the anti-corporate left might have something in common with the Tea Party right, until the nutballs rolled into Nashville with their religious fervor, homophobia, racism and Obama hate. That's when I realized the Tea Partiers were so far off the reservation that there would never be any common ground.

So to Annabel Park I say, good luck with that--and I mean that with all sincerity. Because she’s 100% correct when she says:

In the current climate, too many Americans are afraid to participate, and find the process itself too alienating, because it is dominated by people with extreme opinions and extreme tactics. 

It's hard to speak up when others in the room are screaming.

That’s absolutely true; what I’m not sure of is whether this alienating people from the process was by design or by accident. But good for Park to stand up and offer another way of engaging the electorate, instead of throwing her hands up and saying forget it.

Who knows whether the Coffee Party movement is sustainable and can grow into something meaningful. I’m just glad someone is trying something. 



A National “Coffee House Day” has been scheduled for March 13, where chapters will meet to, ahem, rationally and civilly discuss the issues of the day. So if you’re interested go to their website and see if there’s a chapter near you; if not, try starting one.

Hey, it can’t hurt.

(Note to teabaggers: so far there doesn’t appear to be any fingerprint of George Soros, DailyKos, MoveOn, Starbucks, Whole Foods, or any other “liberal” corporate/DFH entity behind this grassroots movement. Just sayin')

Obama Tax Cuts

[UPDATE]:

In comments, Jim rightfully points out that the "Obama tax cut calculator" I link to was based on campaign promises, not what was actually implemented in the Stimulus. Fair enough, I didn't follow all the links before throwing up my post this morning.

I don't know how different the actual tax cuts in the economic stimulus are from what was promised during the campaign (though even the Wall Street Journal referred to Obama's tax cuts as a campaign promise fulfilled.) So yes, the "calculator" tool is useless. My bad.

But the point remains valid: conservatives reveal their cognitive dissonance when they claim Obama hasn't cut taxes (or in the case of clueless Tea Baggers, pretend he's even raised them). He hasn't; 95% of Americans will be getting a tax cut for 2009.
----------------------------------

There’s a discussion going on downthread about why Obama hasn’t cut taxes, which would sprinkle fairy dust all over the economy and make everything wonderful again.

Of course, Obama has cut taxes. Tax cuts were a big part of the economic stimulus, to the tune of $300 billion, a concession to the Republicans who ended up not voting for it anyway. The Dems voted for it, it passed, and now--shocker!--they don’t get credit for it. So I don’t know why we even bothered. It's like it never happened.

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has a neat tool where you can calculate your Obama tax cut. Check it out, it’s really cool.

Here’s what I love:

Only 12 percent of the public say that the Obama administration has lowered their taxes since coming to office, despite the fact that the White House's stimulus package cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, a new opinion survey found.

Here’s the poll. Not surprisingly, Tea Partiers were most likely to think Obama has raised their taxes, when in fact most have received a tax cut.

That certainly shows you the power of the right wing message. That’s some powerful Kool-Aid, blessed by Frank Luntz, spread by Dick Armey, and swallowed whole by a bunch of clueless idiots so desperate to hate on a Democratic president that they will believe anything they’re told.

Personally I'm not a fan of tax cuts, when our taxes are already at historic lows.

Is Charlie Crist Dumping GOP?

The rumor is that Charlie Crist is going to try to pull a Lieberman:

Two highly placed and independent sources, speaking strictly on background, tell me that Gov. Charlie Crist is preparing to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent in the race for the U.S. Senate.

Well, isn’t that interesting.

It would be a smart move -- it seems to me this would be Crist’s only chance of winning the Florida Senate race.

Wouldn't it be interesting if we had a Senate comprised of Democrats, Republicans and a healthy percentage of Independents? Seems to me that's where we're headed.

Permanent War Economy Electric Boogaloo, V. 2

A new milestone reached in Afghanistan, and a sad desensitization here at home:

Others see a fundamental change in American foreign policy after almost nine years of combat. "The American people and the governing class have accepted that war has become a permanent condition," said retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a history professor at Boston University whose son was killed in Iraq in 2007. "Protracted war has become a widely accepted part of our politics."

What a difference a decade makes.

More on the permanent war economy here, here and here.

What Do Conservatives Want?

This has been making the rounds of blogs:

This chart comes from John Sides, who gathered information from the 2008 American National Election Study about spending priorites. Self identified conservatives, it turns out, aren't actually in favor of cutting spending on much of anything. Child care scored the worst for some reason, getting more hostility than even perennial bogeymen like foreign aid and welfare. Still, even at that, only 20% of conservatives wanted to cut child care spending, and scores dropped precipitously from there.

Drum goes on to say that the 12 programs listed account for about 95% of the federal budget. He concludes that conservative politicians are actually representing their base rather well:

They like to yammer endlessly about cutting spending, but when push comes to shove, there's not much they really think we're spending too much on. It's all just venting.

I touched on this yesterday when I questioned why Republicans keep yammering for tax cuts, then threaten to filibuster a bill that is nothing but tax cuts, then vote for the bill anyway when the filibuster fails.

It is indeed all just venting.

So, you folks are pissed off, we get that. Join the club. But until you can figure out what exactly it is that you want, please take some happy pills.

This chart has prompted much head-scratching among liberals as we try to figure out what the hell is going on in the conservative brain. Digby has an idea:

Maybe we could be a bit more polite and just call them "magical thinking" conservatives, but "conflicted" would imply that they feel some sort of dissonance, and it's quite clear that they do not. They truly believe that government should provide all the services they use but that nobody should have to pay any taxes to support it.

I believe it's the central economic difference between liberals and conservatives. We all like the welfare state and want more of it. They just think it should be paid for with fairy dust and we think progressive taxation is the more logical choice. Sadly, the political system has chosen to go with fairy dust. It's more marketable.

I’m going to offer a different interpretation. I don’t think they believe no one should have to pay for the services everyone says they want. They just think someone else should pay for it. They think they personally are taxed enough as it is (Lord knows we hear that often enough from conservatives, right?). They happen to think they’ve already paid their fair share.

And if that’s the case, then I don’t understand why they don’t think the wealthy shouldn’t pony up and pay more. Maybe it’s a mistrust of the system (“First they came for Paris Hilton, but I wasn’t Paris Hilton so I said nothing ...”). Maybe they aspire to be Paris Hilton someday. I dunno.

Often enough I’ve heard right here on my own blog that conservatives want “charity” to pay for things like healthcare or welfare programs. Well that’s great but who is going to pay the charity? Where are they going to get their money from? Everyone thinks they pay enough taxes and I guarantee you everyone thinks the $100 or $500 donation they made to charity is enough, as well.

It’s the unique conundrum of living in the wealthiest, most privileged country in the world. Wealth inevitably breeds fear; it’s a universal law, a flaw of human nature. Those who have much have a tendency to be closed, to want to hold on to what they’ve got, to hoard. That’s why the Bible is full of verses about giving your wealth away; even the ancients understood human nature and our tendency to think we've given enough. It's why the Old Testament is full of ideas like debt forgiveness every seven years, a 20% production tax during times of plenty to prepare for times of shortage, leaving a portion of your harvest aside for the poor, etc.

So, nothing has changed. People want services but they want someone else to pay for them. Yawn.

Anyway, the good news is that apparently most of us all agree that programs like bridges and highways, aid to the poor, Social Security, and environmental protection are worthwhile programs. That’s a starting place.

At Long Last Bipartisanship?

While our illustrious news media wallows in the glow of bipartisanship they say passage of the Senate jobs bill represents, I counter it highlights how bad partisan gridlock in Washington truly is.

First, from the Los Angeles Times:

More notable, perhaps, than the bill itself was the fact that 13 Republicans crossed party lines to vote for it. The $15-billion bill passed by a 70-28 tally.

The bill would grant employers a "holiday" on their 6.2% Social Security payroll contribution for every new employee hired through the rest of the year, as long as that employee has been out of work for at least 60 days. It would also make it easier for businesses to write off equipment purchases and would extend federal highway and mass-transit funding programs.

This is a tax cut bill. Since when are we doing double back-flips over the fact that 13 Republicans voted for tax cuts?

Hey, Republicans: I thought you people hated taxes! That’s all we ever hear every time you folks open your mouths: “tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts.” Okay, the Democrats gave you your damn tax cuts. And only 13 of you voted for it? What the hell is wrong with you?

Even worse:

Eight Republicans who Monday didn't support a procedural motion to proceed with the jobs bill switched sides Wednesday to support it, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) Thad Cochran (Miss.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), and Richard Burr (R-N.C.). Hatch was a co-author, along with Schumer, of the payroll tax provision in the bill.

Yes that’s right, our own Sen. Lamar Alexander ended up voting for a bill he tried to block two days ago. Holy flip-flop!

And our grand wanker of the day prize goes to Orrin Hatch, a co-author of the bill, who tried to filibuster it on Monday, then voted for it on Wednesday. Yes that’s right, Orrin Hatch tried to filibuster his own tax cuts which he ended up voting for anyway.

This is the glorious “bipartisanship” we’re celebrating?

Feh.

Canaries & Coal Mines

I don’t know if anyone noticed this but yesterday ACORN dissolved, starved of the federal funds it used for things like helping low income people access loans to buy homes and start businesses, register them to vote, get the poor access to housing, and other stuff that we simply cannot have. We live in a country where the free hand of the market always seems to bypass the poor, save to slap their hands when they get uppity and think they deserve a place at the table too. How dare they.

But here's the lesson for liberals: don’t for a minute think the anti-ACORN campaign launched by the right won’t be repeated with other perceived “lefty” organizations. Indeed, it already has.

Two years ago a movement began to defund Planned Parenthood, even though no public funds go toward abortion services. They go toward prenatal care, pap smears, STD testing, birth control and even fertility treatment. You know, gynecological and obstetric care, like what you’d get at any OB/GYN.

If you are “pro life” you should be lining up on the streets to get a Planned Parenthood clinic in your neighborhoods because they are the only access to healthcare a lot of women have, and that healthcare enables women to have healthy babies. But you can’t see the forest for the trees, can you? You’ve drunk so much Kool-Aid that you hear “Planned Parenthood” and instead of thinking, “oh, pre-natal care,” or “oh, a pap smear,” you immediately think “abortion.”

You are very silly, horrid people.

And liberals are silly too, for sitting on their hands while the anti-choice crowd organizes their plan, recruits candidates, circulates petitions (I won’t link to it but it makes the outrageous claim that “one in every two black children is aborted”), and gets on top of the message war with bogus “gotcha” videos.

Are we asleep? Look past the obvious misogyny in this news story which garnered most of the outrage today; instead, see if you can spot the money quote:

RICHMOND – Western Prince William Del. Bob Marshall, R-13th, says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.

He made that statement last Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.

Yes, that’s right, Virginia wants a law just like the one Tennessee passed, which blocks state funding for Planned Parenthood.

Why? No public funds go toward abortion services.

Look people, this isn’t a culture war issue. It’s a healthcare issue. While the right is vigorously fighting any change to a crappy healthcare system which leaves 40 million people uninsured, they are also vigorously working to cut off public funds to the one organization that provides affordable healthcare to some of those people. Those vaginal-Americans who need a variety of services, including birth control, and including a lot of other stuff that any wealthy, upper class woman in a Virginia suburb can get at her local doctor’s office. This makes no sense.

Perhaps they think this is a swell idea:

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.

[...]

The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.

Wow, you’ve got to be some kind of callous bastard completely lacking in empathy to hear that story and think the biggest problem that needs to be addressed is that arranging your own miscarriage isn’t illegal.

Clearly men need to be able to get pregnant and be faced with the consequences of that pregnancy. Men need to know what it feels like to be faced with raising a child when you are poor, single, or a teenager; men should suffer the tremendous emotional pain of surrendering your child to adoption (the dirty little secret we’re not supposed to talk about). Men need to walk a mile (or a month) in this girl’s shoes.

Or else they need to quit crafting policy that treats desperate women in desperate situations like criminals.

But neither of these things are going to happen. Men aren't going to start having babies and they aren't going to get out of politics. So women, and the liberal men who love us, need to wake up. We need to stop ignoring these attacks from the right as some kind of crackpot fringe wacked-out group that won't ever amount to anything.

In case you haven't noticed, the conservative fringe is now the Republican mainstream. So wake up, people. It's time to get active. Time to pay attention and get organized and act like this shit matters. Because it does.