A Blood-Stained History Lesson

Gee, I’m still waiting for Bishop Thomas Tobin (here) and other religious leaders to decry this…

…particularly since individuals in this country once wished for this man’s days to “be few” also, which was realized with horrifying finality 46 years ago today.

Wednesday Mashup Part 1 (11/10/09)

From the “rush to judgment” files, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online (with the 101st Keyboard Kommandoes deciding that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the accused gunman in the Fort Hood shootings, was just some terrist lurking under everybody’s nose but enabled by those damn liberals and their political correctness)…

There is a reason the Pledge of Allegiance asks us to pledge to our country “under God.” The best American tradition has never required people to surrender their first allegiance as a condition of citizenship.

Note to Maggie Gallagher: the Pledge of Allegiance was composed in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, and the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge in 1954 by President Dwight Eisenhower (so basically, the “best American tradition” has been in place for only 55 years of our history, and has thus far withstood numerous court challenges – I doubt that the phrase will ever be removed, but we’ll see).

I was also amused by this story from The Hill, which tells us the following…

A brash, young political newcomer is causing a fuss in GOP circles in the race against Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.).

…

“He’s offending a lot of people,” said attorney Will McBride, who opted out of the race last week. “He’s rubbing people the wrong way. He needs to be a little more professional in his approach to reaching out to local leaders in our party.”

Numerous others confirmed the widespread bristling at Gutierrez’s early maneuvers.

“He’s pissing people off a lot,” said a leading local GOP operative.

“He’s very pushy and is an unknown commodity, and people are jealously guarding their prerogatives.”

Sounds like a guy who needs my support – here’s a link to his web site (I’m just trying to encourage the worst opponent for Grayson here).

And in other news of Repug congressional candidates announcing runs for Congress, I give you the following (here)…

The former prosecutor and major in the Marine Reserves announced his candidacy for Congress.

Dean Malik has climbed the steps to the Bucks County Courthouse many times as a former deputy district attorney and private attorney.

When he stood on the courthouse steps Tuesday afternoon, it was for an entirely different reason – to announce his plans to run for Congress as a Republican in the 8th District against Democrat Patrick Murphy. Malik had his parents, wife and children beside him, and a small crowd of smiling supporters standing on the sidewalk in front of him.

The 38-year-old major in the Marine Reserves positioned himself as the opposite of Murphy, saying he supports a strong national defense and the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan.

“It should have been done months ago because the military has been asking for it,” he said.

Murphy opposed the surge in Iraq and has not said whether he thinks more troops should be sent to Afghanistan.

Republican Bucks County Commissioner Charley Martin stood in the background, near the doors to the courthouse, with his arms crossed and a smile on his face.

Wonder if Malik will have the same “semi-open mind” as Martin? And of course Malik’s campaign, if the Courier Times story is any indication, will be big on the typical rah-rah wingnut “red meat” about God, guns and liberty which, while nice sounding in theory, usually ends up stomping all over that pesky stuff like civil liberties and privacy rights.

The impression I got of Tom Manion when he ran against Murphy last time was that he was a fundamentally good man who was put into the position where he had to play crappy political games which, commendably, he thought were beneath him (I could be wrong, but that was my hunch).

I have a feeling, though, that Malik will have no such hesitancy; again, I’d love to be wrong, but the Repugs seem to be mistaking the relative squall of support they received in the recent New Jersey and Virginia congressional races (helped out by candidates with issues, especially Creigh Deeds in Virginia) for a hurricane that will blow away all Dem incumbents (though I will acknowledge that the Repugs are subject matter experts when it comes to hot air).

And finally, this Hill story tells us the following…

The ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee on Tuesday night accused the White House of withholding information on the Fort Hood attack.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) said administration officials delayed briefing members of Congress about the alleged gunman, raising “red flags” about what the White House was hiding.

“When they withhold information, you always start asking questions,” Hoekstra told Fox News. “That’s what raises red flags. What do they know that they don’t want us to know?”

God, Hoekstra is an idiot; as noted here, he attacked Obama previously when the administration chose to release information on the “enhanced interrogations” conducted under Former President Nutball, and Hoekstra was also, notoriously, the source of Joke Line’s misinformation on FISA in which Klein/Hoekstra claimed that the Dem-sponsored bill (which, horribly, ended up passing) gave terrorists the same rights as U.S. citizens.

Fortunately, Dem Silvestre Reyes responded as follows (here)…

“I am disappointed that some have rushed to the news media with unfounded information in order to gain headlines,” he said in a statement. “I hope that my colleagues will refrain from speculation, pray for those who were affected by this tragic incident, and let investigators do their work.”

And I would be inclined to give Reyes more of an “attaboy” for that, were it not for his horrible vote here.

“Losing My Religion” On Health Care

This news story tells us the following (and I hope I’m being metaphorical only with this post title, by the way)…

Senior Catholic bishops are threatening to oppose the health care bill under consideration in Congress if lawmakers don’t make significant reforms regarding federally funded abortions and other issues.

“No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion,” the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a letter Thursday to members of Congress.

See, the bishops (including Justin Cardinal Rigali of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia) are in a snit because the amendments from Sen. Orrin Hatch to the health care legislation that “sought to explicitly state that the current ban on federal funding for abortions would apply to all aspects of health insurance in the bill and prohibit the government at any level from forcing hospitals, doctors and other health care providers to perform abortions” were thrown out (partly because the wording was idiotic: the “government” can’t “force” ANY medical provider to perform ANY service or procedure…these are just more word games that are part of the process of trying to make abortion illegal under all circumstances and prosecute women seeking this procedure and health care providers who offer it, in an effort to legislatively invalidate Roe v. Wade).

Also, as the story notes, “Federal law allows government funding for abortions only in the cases of rape, incest or danger to a mother’s health,” and I think it’s barbaric to deny abortion services to women facing those circumstances (also, please see the bottom of page two here to read the debunking of the claim that taxpayer funds would be used for abortions).

And for anybody who thinks the Catholic Church would stop at abortions, I should let you know what I heard from the pulpit last Sunday, which was opposition not only to abortion, but in vitro fertilization and stem cell research (welcome to the dark ages).

I’ve tried to find a scientific, impartial source from which I can determine whether or not the number of abortions in this country is going down or not, and I believe it is slightly, but I’m not sure how the data is being manipulated from some of the pro-life sites I’ve visited to learn more about this. However, this tells us that teen birth rates are up in 26 states, with gains primarily in the south and southwest, and decreases in the north.

So even if abortion rates are decreasing in these states, the increasing birth rate tells me that there’s less of an emphasis on sex-ed and access to birth control (I understand the theological reason why the church opposes this, but it utterly flies in the face of the sometimes devastating real-life consequences of acting without education or methods of protection).

Which, I’m sure, is just fine for Cardinal Rigali and his pals. And for all of the reasons I cited above, he and the bishops would oppose the health care bill.

Well, Cardinal, this tells us of a September rally in our archdiocese attended by 400 people (who I’m sure represent many more than that), claiming that “health care for all is a basic human right” and carrying signs, at least one of which read “Insure people, not profits,” before marching to Cigna’s Center City headquarters at 16th and Chestnut streets (and I can recall a time when someone from your church would have actually participated – I’m not aware of any such presence from the story).

And oh yes, CIGNA – those are the people who denied coverage to Natalin Sarkisyan, who, as noted here…

…was a 17-year-old from Glendale, Calif., who had leukemia and needed a liver transplant. Cigna said the procedure was “too risky”, despite the fact that a liver was available and she had a 65 percent chance of survival after six months. As a result of public pressure and publicity, Cigna relented and agreed to pay for the procedure. But it was too late. In December 2007, Ms. Sarkisyan died for lack of the transplant hours after Cigna reversed its decision.

And Will Bunch tells us here of the reception some CIGNA troglodytes gave to Sarkisyan’s mother when she arrived at company headquarters, claiming that CIGNA, in essence, killed her daughter; he tells us that employees “look(ed) down into the atrium lobby from a balcony above, (and) began heckling her, she said, with one of them giving her ‘the finger’.”

Philadelphia, the city that loves you back…

And that kind of made me wonder how much the Catholic Church in Philadelphia has received in donations from CIGNA as well as other corporations, but the problem is that that information isn’t available from the archdiocese’s web site (though LifeSiteNews has no problem providing that information from Planned Parenthood here, including CIGNA – oh, but LifeSiteNews isn’t officially sanctioned by the church…riiiiiight).

This also gives me an excuse to renew my cry for banning of all funds in so-called health savings accounts to be used for abortion (here), and to point out that “good shepherd” Rigali once got “the flock” all in an uproar over the Freedom of Choice Act here, which quite probably will never even pass out of the congressional committee from where it originated.

So Rigali and the bishops apparently refuse to see the consequence of trying to undo health care reform in this country over “values” issues while thousands continue to lose coverage, their savings, their homes, and, in some cases, their lives.

Rigali is lucky that intolerance isn’t considered a pre-existing condition, or he would lose his own coverage.

Thursday Mashup (10/1/09)

The New York Times reported the following today (here)…

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has told lawmakers that it opposes legislation that could protect reporters from being imprisoned if they refuse to disclose confidential sources who leak material about national security, according to several people involved with the negotiations.

The administration this week sent to Congress sweeping revisions to a “media shield” bill that would significantly weaken its protections against forcing reporters to testify.

The bill includes safeguards that would require prosecutors to exhaust other methods for finding the source of the information before subpoenaing a reporter, and would balance investigators’ interests with “the public interest in gathering news and maintaining the free flow of information.”

But under the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause “significant” harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.

The two Democratic senators who have been prime sponsors of the legislation, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said on Wednesday that they were disappointed by the administration’s position.

Mr. Specter called the proposed changes “totally unacceptable,” saying they would gut meaningful judicial review.

On balance, I agree with Specter and Schumer on this. I think the White House is kind of torn between honoring what Candidate Obama said about ensuring reporting safeguards, though President Obama is now loathe to give back some of the privileges it inherited from the Bushco regime in the matter of executive rights versus the judiciary (and Congress).

However, as I read this, I wondered where Specter’s concern for judicial review was during the FISA mess last year. And to be fair, I should note that Specter introduced an amendment that would have ensured judicial review (here), though the amendment was defeated.

In spite of that, however, Specter voted for the sham FISA bill anyway, stating as follows from his web site here (showing some typical brass, I have to admit)…

In offering an amendment for judicial review, I am mindful of the importance of what the telephone companies have been doing on the war against terrorism from my classified briefings. It is a difficult decision to vote for retroactive immunity if my amendment fails, but I will do so, just as I voted for it when my substitution amendment failed because I conclude that the threat of terrorism and the other important provisions in the House bill outweigh the invasion of privacy.

In other words, “civil liberties don’t mean much when you’re dead,” huh Arlen?

And I’m sure THIS wasn’t a factor in any way (and by the way, Admiral Joe Sestak, the legitimate Dem running against Specter for his Senate seat, earns no bragging rights here either based on this).

As noted here from last week’s Inquirer…

Federal authorities have opened a civil-rights investigation into the Valley Club’s alleged discrimination against swimmers from a northeast Philadelphia day camp last summer.

In a letter made public today, U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King wrote that the Department of Justice was looking into whether the private club’s treatment of black and Hispanic children from the Creative Steps Summer Day Camp amounted to prohibited discrimination.

And here’s Snarlin’ Arlen again…

U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.), who wrote to the Department of Justice in July seeking an investigation, said today the federal involvement would “give the public greater assurance” about the handling of the high publicity matter.

And as Phillyburbs columnist Phil Gianficaro noted here last Sunday (don’t know much about this guy)…

The Valley Club has long cited overcrowding/safety issues as the reason it pulled the plug on the Creative Steps campers, as well as on another day camp’s plans to swim this summer.

On Tuesday it was learned the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission didn’t agree. The commission made public the findings of its investigation that concluded the Creative Steps campers were denied swimming privileges due to race, and advised the swim club provide sensitivity training to its board members and club members and pay a civil penalty of $50,000.

However, Creative Steps attorney Gabriel Levin interprets the $50,000 figure as being for each individual child, which, if true, would raise the total amount owed by The Valley Club to more than $3 million.

On Wednesday (9/23) it was learned that the US Department of Justice is also investigating allegations of discrimination by the swim club. If the swim club and day camp cannot settle the dispute on their own, the state Human Relations Commission board will conduct a public hearing and vote on the case. That outcome could be appealed to Commonwealth Court.

And in case anyone has any doubts about the Pennsylvania Human Rights Commission, I can assure you that they took this matter very seriously and conducted thorough interviews with many individuals at the pool on the day of the incident.

That being said, I can’t think of a word to describe the absurdity of awarding each of the Creative Steps kids $50 grand each because of the ignorant insensitivity of the Valley Swim Club members.

With all of this in mind, I’d like to put forward an idea.

To lessen any punitive costs incurred by the swim club, how about if they agree to some kind of an “exchange” program next summer, whereby some of the Creative Steps kids will be able to attend the Valley Swim Club free of charge, while some of the Valley Swim Club members will be granted free pool admission to a facility in Northeast Philadelphia near where Creative Steps is located. I’m sure it will be an enlightening experience for all concerned.

(Also, I believe the Bucks County Courier Times editorial board opined on this subject recently, but as far as I’m concerned, any alleged editorial board that publishes an opinion column with a headline of “loony liberals” doesn’t even deserve a link.)

And in other news pertaining to Phillyburbs columnists, I should note that J.D. (Keeping It Local) Mullane waxed philosophic today here about the fact that, as a consequence of his attendance at the 9/12 rally in Washington, he ended up getting stuck with the bar tab for a couple of drunken teabaggers.

Heh, heh, heh…

This CNN Ticker post tells us the following…

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Republican Sen. Bob Corker suggested Wednesday that when it comes to health care, Canada and France have a “parasitic relationship” towards the United States.

During a hearing of the Special Committee on Aging, the Tennessee Republican told Canada’s former Public Health Minister, Dr. Carolyn Bennett, that her country is “living off of us” because they set lower prices for health care and “all the innovation, all the technology breakthroughs just about take place in our country and we have to pay for it.”

You truly can cut the stoo-pid with a knife, people; this tells us the following (concerning a study comparing U.S. treatment outcomes and other quality indicators with that of at least 30 developed countries, including Australia, France and the United Kingdom). …

(The study) examined health care system research conducted during the past 10 to 15 years and found there was “no hard evidence” that U.S. health care quality stands out across the board. They did find that the U.S. had high scores in some specific treatment areas, such as cancer care. However, it didn’t do as well when compared to other nations at handling preventive care or treatment for acute conditions, including heart disease and hip fractures.

Perhaps one of the study’s most unexpected findings—depending on your political point of view —is that the quality of health care in Canada tends to be higher than in the U.S. The researchers looked at 10 statistically adjusted studies of broad populations and found that five favored care in Canada. The U.S. came out better in two. Three were inconclusive. Docteur points out the universal coverage in Canada helps to ensure that Canadians receive the care they need throughout their lives. “I think the main point is that our study showed quite clearly that it is not the case that the U.S. is dominating Canada … in terms of quality of care,” she said.

And as far as France is concerned, this tells us the following…

French public health experts thought patients with chronic disease weren’t getting the kind of sustained, coordinated medical care that they needed.

But in the course of a few dozen lengthy interviews, not once did I encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American. And it was easy enough to see why. People in these countries were getting precisely what most Americans say they want: Timely, quality care. Physicians felt free to practice medicine the way they wanted; companies got to concentrate on their lines of business, rather than develop expertise in managing health benefits. But, in contrast with the US, everybody had insurance. The papers weren’t filled with stories of people going bankrupt or skipping medical care because they couldn’t afford to pay their bills. And they did all this while paying substantially less, overall, than we do.

…

In both the Netherlands and France, most people have long-standing relationships with their primary care doctors. And when they need to see these doctors, they do so without delay or hassle. In a 2008 survey of adults with chronic disease conducted by the Commonwealth Fund – a foundation which financed my own research abroad – 60 percent of Dutch patients and 42 percent of French patients could get same-day appointments. The figure in the US was just 26 percent.

The contrast with after-hours care is even more striking. If you live in either Amsterdam or Paris, and get sick after your family physician has gone home, a phone call will typically get you an immediate medical consultation – or even, if necessary, a house call. And if you need the sort of attention available only at a formal medical facility, you can get that, too – without the long waits typical in US emergency rooms.

The article notes that it took longer on average to see a specialist in France and the Netherlands than in this country, though I would take that trade if it meant better access to everyday and preventative care.

Oh, and when it comes to “parasites,” let’s not forget that Corker owes his Senate seat in part to former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was responsible for the infamous ad against Corker’s Senate opponent Dem Harold Ford in 2006 in a which a white woman claimed to have met Ford at a “Playboy party” and said “Call me” to him (here).

Tennessee must be so proud (more here).

Wednesday Mashup (9/23/09)

Someone named Iain Murray at Irrational Spew Online has criticized President Obama for using the term “carbon pollution” instead of “greenhouse gases” in recent speeches here, as follows…

I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history. . . . We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants.

This supposed catch is attributed to a reporter named Lauren Morello from openmarket.org, who noticed this “shift in the vocabulary (of) U.S. officials.”

I would think that conservatives should be the last people in the world decrying a “shift in the vocabulary” or the employment of likely-marketing-tested wording to help sell a policy on behalf of the current administration.

For you see, Bushco was proficient in selling any policy it wanted to achieve its nefarious ends, twisting words and meaning whenever it suited its foul purposes (of course, more and more people became wise to their con over time, but not soon enough).

For me, the phrase “return on success,” as it allegedly pertained to the Iraq war, was a particularly galling example.

As Think Progress told us here, “return on success” was Bushco-ese for “some of our troops are leaving Iraq, but most are staying behind.”

And as Salon.com’s Alex Koppleman tells us here…

…the withdrawal of these forces isn’t tied to success in the way the president pretends. In fact, he had little choice but to begin these drawdowns, and his top generals — including Gen. David Petraeus — have not made a secret of that.

In July 2007, Petraeus appeared on Good Morning America, where he said, “We know that the surge has to come to an end … General Odierno and I have — are on the record telling our soldiers that we will not ask for any extension certainly beyond 15 months.”

Also, as a Think Progress commenter noted…

“Return on Success” is actually a play on the business term: “Return on Investment.” Looked at from that angle, it’s been a huge loss of investment in both lives and treasure for the American public. If this war/occupation was a stock offered in the financial markets, it would be worth about $-0.2. The only profitability has been for the war profiteers and stock holders in THOSE criminal corporations.

So given all of this, I believe that using the phrase “carbon pollution” instead of “greenhouse gases” isn’t anything to get hot and bothered about (unless you’re thinking of replacing the phrase “return on success” with “return on failure” to describe the foul, fetid Bushco reign, in which case you would be substantively correct).

And by the way, anyone who had Kevin Jennings, assistant deputy secretary for the office of Safe & Drug Free Schools in the U.S. Department of Education, as the next person on the list “Cracker Nation” (as Bill Maher calls them) would get into a tizzy over automatically wins first prize (wonder what it would be – a collage of “family values” Republicans such as Jesse Helms, David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Mark Sanford, maybe?).

As noted here, Jennings’ “crime” is “aiming to prevent gender- and sexual orientation-related bullying in schools,” (wingnuttia reigns in this excerpt)…

Jennings has spent decades actively and successfully promoting myths about homosexuality to schoolchildren as founder of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN). Van Jones was done in by two key charges and one taped quote; FRC documented at least seven outrageous facts about Jennings and five inflammatory quotes in documents we released in June (see www.stopjennings.org).

Unfortunately, Jennings has now taken his office at the Education Department-where he will be charged with implementing laws like the “Safe Schools Improvement Act,” introduced as H.R. 2262. This bill to combat “bullying” and “harassment” is like a “hate crimes” law for schools-but without being limited to actual violence. Cutting down on bullying and harassment of anyone is a worthy goal, but naming “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as protected categories makes this bill more about advancing the homosexual agenda than keeping schools safe.

Ah yes, the dreaded “homosexual agenda.” I know it’s permeating every aspect of my life whenever I feel an unmanly urge to watch “Project Runway,” read The Bell Jar or wear Mrs. Doomsy’s beige pumps.

(…give me a frackin’ break, people!!…)

As we learn from Pam’s House Blend here, charges that Jennings “hates Christians,” “is teaching children nasty sexual behavior through the group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network),” and “covered up the sexual abuse of an underaged child” have all been refuted.

However…

The newest “controversy” is that Jennings gave a speech in 1995 explaining how to introduce lgbt supportive groups in schools:

In 1995, he gave a speech in which he described how he has used the concept of “safety” in schools to promote homosexual advocacy in public schools in Massachusetts. He gave a speech called “Winning the Culture War” at the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference on March 5 of that year.

Excerpts have been posted on the website of MassResistance, where chief Brian Camenker has worked to oppose the demands of homosexual activists.

In the speech, Jennings described how he was concerned about being described as promoting homosexuality, so he chose to campaign on the idea of “safety” instead.

“If the radical right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language – ‘promoting homosexuality’ is one example – is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are ‘after their kids,’” he told the conference. . . “

Actually there is nothing wrong with the speech. In fact, it’s a very good speech which should be remembered.

Again, we have here another example of conservatives twisting words to suit their ends.

As for Jennings himself, this tells us the following…

Prior to his tenure at GLSEN, Jennings served as History Department chair and a history teacher at Concord Academy in Massachusetts and before that as a history teacher at Moses Brown School in Rhode Island. Jennings has also authored six books including Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son: A Memoir which was named a 2007 Book of Honor by the American Library Association and Telling Tales Out of School which was the winner of the 1998 Lambda Literary Award. Jennings received an A.B. in history from Harvard, an M.A. from the Columbia University Teachers College and an M.B.A. from NYU’s Stern School of Business.

Besides, the prior regime employed a gay man named Mark Dybul at the State Department as Bushco’s “global AIDS coordinator,” as we learn here, and I don’t recall hearing any howls of protest from the FRC (or Fix Noise, for that matter – no surprise – as noted here).

Update 9/25/09: More from Media Matters here…

And finally, did you know that the pay of bank CEOs in this country “dwarfs” that of the rest of the world, as noted here?

As Sarah Anderson, a fellow with the Institute for Policy Studies, tells us…

“(U.S. bank CEOs) have claimed it is impossible to recruit people without paying such compensation. Yet, if you look at the pay levels in Europe and in a lot of Asian countries, somehow they manage to find people who can run major global firms while making a fraction of what they make in the U.S.,” she said.

And so what exactly do we get for all that extra dough?

Well…

Bank of America and Citigroup (I’ll be nice here and not use the scatological names) are alleged to have funded Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan national at the center of a reputed Al Qaeda terror cell probe, according to the New York Daily News here (as the post asks, “What kind of banks lend tens of thousands of dollars unsecured to 20-year-old coffee cart vendor / shuttle bus driver foreigners with no assets?”).

The banks bailed out by TARP “stuffed” CEOs with stock when the market was down, and now these CEOs are making out all over again now that the market is returning to reasonable health, as noted here.

As noted here in this story telling us that even token regulation of bank products was defeated, Barney Frank tells us that the banks generally “regard consumer affairs as a kind of nuisance.”

Meanwhile, Dem Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota continues to be absolutely correct in the matter of bank regulation, as noted here from last March.

Update: Oh, and, by the way…

An “Inartful” Solution To PA’s Budget Impasse

Given that I rightly dump on the Inquirer and Daily News on a regular basis, it would be unfair of me not to give either paper credit when they do really good work. And that is true of Karen Heller’s column today (the subject is the last-minute deal to slap “an 8 percent surcharge on tickets and membership at arts and cultural organizations in Philadelphia, 6 percent elsewhere, at a time when endowments are down, giving is down, and attendance is down,” as Heller tells us)…

“I don’t know what Gov. Rendell and the leaders of the legislature were thinking,” Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance president Peggy Amsterdam said before launching a “Fight the Arts Tax” movement at last night’s fall meeting. “The really sad thing is we try to make cultural experiences accessible and affordable to everyone. This is going to make it harder.” Increased ticket prices, she argued, will drive away even more patrons already hit by the recession.

Of the alliance’s 390 member institutions, 40 percent are suffering deficits, including the Philadelphia Orchestra, with shortfalls of $3.3 million last fiscal year and a projected $7.5 million this year. It’s like drawing blood from an anemic. Amsterdam says projecting $100 million in annual tax revenues is pure folly: “Our estimates are nowhere near that – maybe $20 million statewide.”

Arts administrators complain there are no details on how much will be redirected or where. What’s to prevent Republican lawmakers from taking Philadelphia Museum of Art revenues and shipping them, say, to the Enchanted Woodlins chainsaw carvings of Elk County?

“If this had been proposed totally across the board on all forms of entertainment, you might say, ‘This stinks. It adds to our challenges, but these are really difficult times and we’re all doing our share,’ ” said Cultural Alliance chairman Hal Real. “But it’s not across the board. And it’s symptomatic of how undervalued the arts are in our culture.”

“Not across the board” indeed: as Heller points out, anyone who wants to pony up some dough to ogle Megan Fox in “Jennifer’s Body” as she cavorts with and then subsequently attacks her boyfriends (apparently she’s a vampire also – I only know about the flick from the commercial that seems to be on everywhere) is free to do so without paying the 8 percent tax on top of the ticket price.

And that also goes for anyone who wants to get drunk at a tailgate party and watch the Philadelphia Eagles’ defense get carved up by a reasonably competent NFL quarterback again (to say nothing of watching slapstick special teams play), as Drew Brees of New Orleans did last Sunday (I’ll admit that Brees is a lot better than “reasonably competent,” though). Also, in the matter of football, don’t you worry, all of you egomaniacs driving around in your Hummers, Jettas and Lexus SUVs with your lion’s paw decals and bumper stickers saying, “If God Isn’t A Penn State Fan, Why Did He Make The Sky Blue And White?”…it looks like your precious Nittany Lions weren’t affected either.

And you want to know who else wasn’t affected by the 8 percent arts sales tax? The warmongering Pattison Avenue Potentate himself, Ed Snider, that’s who. Don’t worry, you’ll still be able to watch Evgeni Malkin, Sidney Crosby and the rest of the Stanley Cup Champion Pittsburgh Penguins skate circles around the orange-and-black at the same cost you would have paid otherwise, to say nothing of watching the Sixers get eaten alive by other teams’ big men in the paint.

(By the way, to the Eagles’ credit, I should point out that owner Jeffrey Lurie and Snider are polar opposites politically; the Eagles are big contributors to the Democratic Party.)

Yes, I’m more than a little pissed about this, partly because, as Heller points out, it doesn’t make economic sense. However, the tax does appease the Republican Party for the purposes of doing the deal, which of course is what this is all about.

And with that in mind, this tells us the following…

The philosophical divide between those who see the arts as frivolous and those who see its value is as old as the nation.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the federal Works Progress Administration paid thousands of unemployed artists to write regional guidebooks, produce plays and organize symphony orchestras. The work of more than 5,000 artists can still be seen today in murals commissioned for schools, post offices and other government buildings.

President Obama has not proposed such a program but supports increased arts funding. Most Republicans oppose spending tax dollars on aesthetics.

“America is a practical nation that comes from very practical roots,” says Robert Lynch of the advocacy group Americans for the Arts. “That practicality … is part of what we’ve had to overcome.”

It was on display in the recent debate in Congress over the economic stimulus package.

The House of Representatives version included $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts to help non-profit arts organizations avoid closing or laying off workers, but the Senate version left it out. The final bill restored the money for the NEA.

“Putting people to work is more important than putting more art on the wall of some New York City gallery frequented by the elite art community,” said Republican Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia during the debate.

No word on whether or not Kingston ever found his flag lapel pin, by the way.

But on top of that, anyone who thinks arts spending doesn’t make a positive economic impact (like Kingston) is just plan wrong (I linked to this in a prior post, but it bears repeating)…

In Chicago, nonprofit arts and cultural organizations generate $1.09 billion in revenue, support 30,134 jobs, and deliver over $103 million in tax revenue to local and state government, according to the Illinois Arts Alliance. In Illinois, 23,643 creative enterprises employ 132,882 people, according to Americans for the Arts.

And as noted here…

The arts are a prime vehicle for job creation and a valued economic distribution mechanism. The country’s more than 4,000 local and state arts agencies have nearly 50 years of proven history as good stewards of our tax dollars and can ensure speedy disbursement to local projects, along with the excellent direct distribution track record of the National Endowment for the Arts itself. The arts are essential to the health and vitality of our communities.”

NEA funds, on average, leverage $7 in additional support through local, state, and private donations, for every one dollar in federal support. Fifty million in economic stimulus will leverage $350 million of investment.

And returning to Heller, she concludes with this…

If you were a deeply cynical sort of person, even someone with a fleeting knowledge of the sour feelings Republicans have for Philadelphia and Rendell, you might think this latest culture tax was a spirited flamenco dance atop the city’s fiscal woes.

In high heels, for good measure (to twist the old saying a bit, I guess PA’s Harrisburg poobahs don’t know much about spending money efficiently, but they know what they like…or don’t like in this case).

Some Monday “Byko” Blather on Carter and Race

Stu (“I’m Thinking Another 9/11 Would Help America,” here) Bykofsky really should have just gulped down a fistful of Xanax and gone over to lie down in a corner instead of spitting out his utter dreck of a column today, but he concocted his idiotic screed anyway.

See, “Byko” is in a lather over President Carter’s recent comment that the anti-Obama sentiment in this country is race-based, something which I think is pretty evident based on this.

So he thusly piled on (I could take time to refute all of it, but this sampling is pretty indicative – and by the way, he makes it sound like Carter and Muammar Qadhafi were buds, but it was Dubya who signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government’s immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, not Carter, as noted here – also, if there’s one person Carter would not be friends with, it is Fidel Castro, since the latter played the former like a fiddle in the matter of the Mariel Boat Lift)…

(Carter’s) remark paralleled the equally hair-trigger opinion of the Philadelphians who hung the “racist” tag on anyone who objected to the Eagles’ hiring of Michael Vick.

Uh, I objected to the Eagles’ signing of Vick (here), and I didn’t get any comments branding me a racist (and I most definitely support President Carter in this matter).

Also…

In his latest ramble, Old Mushmouth said the “overwhelming portion” of those loudly opposing President Obama are racists.

He hasn’t created so many waves since he was in a waterborne battle with an enraged swamp rabbit.

…

In reality, there’s a racial strain in most national discussions involving Obama, but it is irrational to think r-a-c-e is animating all, or even most, of the animosity.

See the prior post on Noel Sheppard for proof that Carter is right, “Byko” (and by the way, I don’t know what the hell “Byko” is talking about with that comment about a “racial strain” that somehow isn’t “animating…the animosity”; “Byko” also introduces more faux equivalency between those who opposed Clinton over a blow job and those who opposed Dubya for lying us into war with an enemy that had nothing to do with 9/11, expanding our country’s policy of rendition beyond all reason or adherence to the law, trashing the environment and civil liberties, staffing his administration with hacks and flunkies in charge of government agencies, acting as if he actually cared about those “values voters” his party plays for fools every four years, etc.)…

Also…

Predictably, anyone disagreeing with Carter was immediately tarred as a racist. That’s what MSNBC’s semi-rational ranter Keith Olbermann bayed last Wednesday. If you diss Carter, he suggested, you are a racist and a right-wing nutjob.

From this transcript (and I hate to admit that “Byko” is partly correct, even though Olbermann was dead-on, but “Byko” left out the rant of a certain Flush Limbore)…

OLBERMANN: Carter and courage: The former president elaborates on his comments about racism being at the core of some of the rage against the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY CARTER, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African-American ought not to be president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: And he gets the “all too predictable” reactionary blowback from the racists he‘s talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO HOST: Jimmy Carter is the nation‘s hemorrhoid folks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Well, I got to defer to him here, the nation‘s (BLEEP) hole would know about the nation‘s hemorrhoid.

Oh, and by the way, Byko, when you decide to actually provide meaningful, factual information to support your ridiculous claim that that “individual rights (are) being usurped by a federal government growing like kudzu,” let me know, OK?

Meanwhile, I’ll breathlessly await word on how much money Philadelphia Newspapers lost this week, or how their brilliant plan to have one group of rich Philadelphians headed by Bruce Toll bail out another group of rich Philadelphians headed by Bruce Toll is progressing.

A Message For Noel Sheppard

More Fix Noise propaganda (from here, including the following)…

There is nothing going on at Tea Parties, rallies, or town hall meetings that is at all related to racism and it’s time for the president of the United States to rein in this divisiveness and call upon his fellow Democrats to stop the race-baiting.

Oh yeah?

Thursday Mashup (9/17/09)

Congratulations to President Obama for abandoning the idiotic, let’s-just-light-some-money-on-fire-since-it-would-accomplish-the-same-thing concept of strategic missile defense, as noted here (and somehow, I never understood how getting Russia POed at the expense of some enthusiasm from the Czechs and some half-hearted cooperation from Poland, as noted here, was beneficial to this country).

And I’m sure Edward Teller is doing disapproving somersaults in Gehenna, where he no doubt resides at this moment.

The Murdoch Street Journal allowed “Bush’s Brain” to spew more bilious nonsense today (from here)…

On Friday, I was at DePauw University in Indiana debating former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. It was two days after Barack Obama’s big speech before a joint session of Congress and Mr. Dean is a strong advocate for his party’s agenda and a medical doctor, so I expected him to defend the president’s idea of adding a “trigger” to health-care reform to ease its passage and thereby guarantee a government takeover of our health-care system.

But Mr. Dean turned out to be tougher on triggers than I was. He called them a “terrible” idea.

It’s now becoming clear that Mr. Obama’s speech failed to rally voters and failed to inspire Democrats to follow their president’s lead.

Nice try, Turd Blossom.

As noted here, the reason Dr. Dean opposes “triggers” (en route to a “government takeover of our health care system” – waaay too funny) is because they’re “a means by which politicians kick the policy can down the road—maybe forever, and end up, ultimately doing nothing” (actually, David Sirota points that out here). It’s not because Dean opposes health care reform – quite the opposite, actually.

And as far as whether or not Obama’s speech was a failure, this Gallup poll from today tells us that “Obama’s approval ratings on the economy (46%) and healthcare (43%) are holding steady over the last two months.”

And if you want to read something REALLY funny, check this out…

Those Democrats will soon notice that seniors are worried about Mr. Obama’s proposed Medicare cuts and that Hispanics–the fastest growing part of the electorate–are slipping away from the president. Gallup polls reveal his support among Hispanics fell 14 points to 67% over the summer.

And now, for the reality point of view (here)…

The Latino vote comprised 9 percent of the electorate nationwide in 2008, a figure that totals over 11 million voters. This turnout represents a jump of over 3 million voters since 2004, when 7.6 million Latinos cast ballots, and is approximately double the Latino turnout of 2000. Ominously for Republicans, the Latino vote broke overwhelmingly Democratic in 2008. After supporting Democratic candidate John Kerry by a 56-44 percent margin against George W. Bush in 2004, Latinos gave Democratic candidate Barack Obama their support at a 67-31 percent margin against John McCain. As the New York Times showed, Latinos’ movement towards Democrats was one of the biggest demographic shifts from 2004 to 2008.

The reason behind this shift, according to political pundits and strategists of both parties, was the Republicans’ tarnished brand related to the issue of immigration. As Latino polling expert Sergio Bendixen stated, “the debate over immigration started driving Hispanic voters toward the Democratic party, and the economic black hole clinched it.”

Can the Dems take any voting bloc for granted, particularly for next year and 2012? Of course not (and though I’m glad to see Obama step up immigration enforcement among employers hiring illegals, that could have a “blowback” if not combined with some common-sense immigration reform, a subject upon which the Repugs also played “kick the can” when they were in charge).

But any non-partisan individual would have to be muay loco to think that addressing health care reform would be negative in any way towards Hispanics in particular (of course, Rove doesn’t have a non-partisan molecule in his body).

I came across the following post from author Thomas Frank (What’s The Matter with Kansas?) at The Huffington Post today, and I thought he made some good points…

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right’s utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word “freedom” that when its leaders stand up for the rights of banks to be unregulated or capital gains to be untaxed, that it is actually and obviously standing up for human liberty, the noblest cause of them all.

Equally annoying is the silence of Democratic Party leaders on the subject. They spend their careers hearing this fatuous argument from the other side, but challenging conservatism’s claim to freedom seems to be beyond their powers. Or beneath their dignity. Or something.

Today they’re paying for that high-mindedness. While Democrats fussed with the details of health care reforms, conservatives spent months telling the nation that the real issue is freedom, that what’s on the line is American liberty itself.

Any increase in the size or duties of government, the right tells us, necessarily subtracts from our freedom. Government is, by its very nature, a destroyer of liberties; the Obama administration, specifically, is promising to interfere with the economy and the health care system so profoundly that Washington will soon have us all in chains.

With that in mind, I’d like to propose some of my own personal “freedoms” that, I think, coincide with much of what I try to do here online and elsewhere to support the Democratic Party and promote reasoned, informed discourse:

I have the freedom to speak out against right-wing (and occasionally left-wing) demagoguery masquerading as fact, whose sole purpose is to obfuscate, misinform and/or propagandize, in as respectful a manner as I can (though the occasional bad word may slip through – I should allow some “wiggle room” here).

I have the freedom to do this at social networking sites such as this one, as well as through any other means of electronic communication using the most up-to-date technological tools at my disposal (I’m not real big on the idea of Twitter, for example, but I suppose I’ll have to “get with it” at some point). Pursuant to that, I have the freedom to disregard comments expressed in response to my stated opinion that only serve to denigrate me personally, as well as comments that do not apply to my stated position and only serve to obfuscate, misinform and/or propagandize on an unrelated topic.

I also have the freedom to communicate my point of view in print media and also in conversations with others in an attempt to inform and possibly influence their opinion.

I also have the freedom to venture to other online sites or forums where opinions contrary to my own are expressed in an attempt to inform others, in the hope of influencing their opinions as well.

In the event that the exercise stated above leads to personal attacks, I have the freedom to thoroughly defend myself against any aggressive act which results from respectfully voicing my opinion.

I also have the freedom to listen to respectful voices of dissent and allow for the possibility that my own opinion may be influenced by the reasoned attempt of others to do the same as I would do.

I can’t think of any others at the moment. If anybody else wants to chime in, feel free to do so.

Peddling NEA Nonsense With The “Moonie Times”

Wow, the Washington Times must be onto something in this editorial today (titled “NEA Scandal Time Line”)…

Nov. 10, 2008: A former National Endowment for the Arts chief is named to the Obama transition team. Bill Ivey, NEA head under Bill Clinton, will handle arts and cultural issues in the transition.

Jan. 13, 2009: Arts groups lobby the Obama transition team for stimulus money. As part of a larger group, Americans for the Arts, the Literary Network and Theatre Communications Group propose to the transition team that more than $1 billion be funneled through the NEA as part of the stimulus plan. All three would later endorse the Obama administration’s health care initiative. Robert L. Lynch, head of Americans for the Arts, meets twice with transition officials.

Late January: An Obama transition official proposes linking NEA grantees to the White House. “I worked hard to try to forge a link between the arts agencies and mainstream policy in the West Wing of the White House. I know that there is serious consideration being given to placing an arts-and-culture portfolio within the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Engagement in the Domestic Policy Council. I worked hard to get that done and I think that will happen,” says former NEA chief Bill Ivey.

So…am I to understand that the head of the NEA under President Clinton, who also served as a member of the Obama transition team, lobbied for more than $1 billion of stimulus funding, and then “worked hard to try to forge a link between the arts agencies and mainstream policy in the West Wing of the White House”? And did I mention that he also worked for Bill Clinton?

OH MAW GAWD!!!! SOMEBODY CALLS THE NEW YORK TIMES IMMEDIATELY!!!

OK, OK, I’m messing around a bit here. The editorial calls it a “scandal” that, allegedly through the influence of that dastardly NEA, arts groups supported the Obama administration on health care reform.

And as far as the editorial is concerned, that’s pretty much it.

Uh huh.

Well, I think what we have here is a case of wingnut media trying to work that teabaggin’ “base” into a lather over an alleged dustup with one of the right’s favorite targets (more on that in a minute).

And besides, if the NEA is really “in cahoots” as they say with the Obama Administration, then they have a funny way of showing it; as noted here, they oppose the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top” program from Obama partly because it uses test scores for evaluating teachers and calls for an increase in the number of charter schools (kind of hard for me to work up opposition to that, as long as it’s balanced with funding for more teachers and better salaries – as far as I’m concerned, if we really paid people what they were worth in this country, teachers would make more money than anyone else).

Note: Sorry the Education Week link isn’t cooperating…

But more to the point, here is a list of “stim” grants to the NEA (including such “subversive” organizations as the Albany Symphony Orchestra, the Cultural Council of Greater Jacksonville, Inc., and the Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts).

And as noted here in a March story, the NEA puts people to work and keeps them in their jobs, and as a result…

The NEA says it receives far more requests than it is able to fund. During a grant cycle ended Oct. 31, 2008, one category—Access to Artistic Excellence—received more than 1,300 applications requesting $73.5 million. Of those requests, only 886 organizations received a total of just $20.3 million in funding.

“The same will happen with the stimulus fund program,” said a representative from the NEA Office of Communications. “It is very rare that an application is funded at the full amount requested.”

In Chicago, nonprofit arts and cultural organizations generate $1.09 billion in revenue, support 30,134 jobs, and deliver over $103 million in tax revenue to local and state government, according to the Illinois Arts Alliance. In Illinois, 23,643 creative enterprises employ 132,882 people, according to Americans for the Arts.

At the same time, approximately 129,000 artists were unemployed in the United States in the fourth quarter of 2008, a jump of 50,000, or 63 percent from 2007, according to NEA research.

While the artist unemployment rate is comparable to the 8.1 percent unemployment rate for the U.S. workforce in general, the unemployment rate among artists has risen more rapidly. Artist unemployment grew by 2.4 percentage points between the fourth quarters of 2007 and 2008, while unemployment rates among professional workers and the general population grew by only 1.0 and 1.9 percentage points, respectively.

But as far as the NEA being a “target,” screeching from The Heritage Foundation and other conservative outlets is typical; this 1997 post tells us, with the requisite harrumphing, of an NEA-funded project called “Ten Cents a Dance,” a three-vignette video in which “two women awkwardly discuss their mutual attraction.” It “depicts anonymous bathroom sex between two men” and includes an “ironic episode of heterosexual phone sex” (funny coming from a source sympathetic to the political party of Larry Craig).

Also, I would argue that Baby Newton Leroy Gingrich’s attack on the NEA when he was former House Speaker was one of the reasons why he was removed from power – I believe people in this country, for the most part, have enough good sense to see the merit of public funding of the NEA (and, indirectly, public television).

And finally, this Fix Noise epistle tells us the following…

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, he said.”These sorts of programs (including the NEA of course) really do need to be funded by the patrons that go to the performances — not by the federal government.”

Which begs the question, who exactly do you think “the government” is?

Update 9/17/09: David Mastio, Senior Editor for Online Opinion of The Washington Times, replied today and told me the following…

“The NEA we were writing about and the NEA in the following paragraph are not the same NEA. Not that I am one to call the kettle black, cause I have written out the name of the teacher/NEA instead of the Art/NEA and then had to go back and fix it.”

I appreciate his response, but I reread the editorial and couldn’t find any reference to the NEA as the National Education Association. If I missed the reference and anyone else finds it, feel free to let me know.

Update 9/28/09: Sure sounds like the National Endowment for the Arts to me based on this.