The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

Came here to post that

[StrangeSox]

Peter Schiff literally pining for the Gilded Age:

 

Slate: You’ll argue on Tuesday in support of the motion that China does capitalism better than America. What do they know that we don’t?

 

Peter Schiff: First of all, I don’t think either the United States or China does capitalism all that well. America did capitalism a lot better in the 19th century than China does it now, but today, China does it better than we do. Though both countries have far too much government involvement in the economy, we have more. They’re Communists, supposedly, and we’re not, but our government screws up our economy more than the Chinese government screws up its.

 

...

 

Slate: What lies ahead for China politically?

 

Schiff: I think there will ultimately be more freedom than there is today. Will China ever become a one man, one vote democracy? Hopefully not, for the sake of the Chinese. Doing so has certainly not served our interest. We enjoyed a lot more freedom and prosperity when we were less democratic. In the 19th century we were quite undemocratic in the way government ran, and we benefited from that lack of democracy. But as we became more democratic, we grew less free and therefore less prosperous. If they’re wise, the Chinese won’t follow that example. They’ll try to model their government after what America used to be, before we screwed it up.

 

Of course, the "we" that enjoyed a lot more freedom refers to people like Schiff (rich white guys), not everyone. This sort of honesty is refreshing, in a way.

[StrangeSox]

In a bizarre analogy, Neal Boortz compares poor people to worms in a dog and says that we should "deworm" but that that dastardly Obama is stopping us because "the worms have a vote."

 

At best, he's saying that the poor shouldn't have a vote. At worst, he's calling for them to be destroyed.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just a short piece on now-outgoing Congressman Kucinich, that has a couple nice moments described in it. It really is hard not to like the guy.

 

[kapkomet]

Just a short piece on now-outgoing Congressman Kucinich, that has a couple nice moments described in it. It really is hard not to like the guy.

 

 

I respect Kucinich. You know why? Because the man is principled. I totally disagree with his political views, but I respect this guy then just about any other congressperson.

[StrangeSox]

I sucks to lose one of the truly liberal members of Congress, but I don't really know that he was very effective in shaping policy, pulling discourse leftward or getting anything major done.

[Balta1701]

I sucks to lose one of the truly liberal members of Congress, but I don't really know that he was very effective in shaping policy, pulling discourse leftward or getting anything major done.

I'd say the biggest problem is that he made the "liberal caricature" too easy.

[StrangeSox]

Corey Robin with a good piece examining just how terrible Arizona's proposed new law allowing employers to require employees prove birth control isn't being used for, well, birth control in order to have it covered by insurance is.

http://coreyrobin.com/2012/03/14/birth-control-mccarthyism/

And here’s where the McCarthy specter becomes particularly troubling. Notice the second provision of the Arizona legislation: employers will now have the right to question their employees about what they plan to do with their birth-control prescriptions. Not only is this a violation of the right to privacy—again, not a right our Constitution currently recognizes in the workplace—but it obviously can give employers the necessary information they need to fire an employee. If a women admits to using contraception in order to not get pregnant, there’s nothing in the Constitution to stop an anti-birth control employer from firing her.

 

….

 

It’s unclear what the future of Birth Control McCarthyism will be, but anyone who thinks the repressive implications of these bills can be simply brushed aside with vague feints to the religious freedoms of employers—more on this in a moment—is overlooking the long and sordid history of Fear, American Style. Private employers punishing their employees for holding disfavored views or engaging in disapproved practices (disapproved by the employer, that is) is the way a lot of repression happens in this country. And it can have toxic effects, as Liza Love, a witness before the Arizona Senate committee, testified:

 

“I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records,” Love said. “But there are 10 women behind me that would be ashamed to do so.”

 

In the debate over the legislation, Arizona Republican Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (also the bill’s author) said, “I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union.” She’s right, though perhaps not in the way she intended: unlike in the Soviet Union, the government here may not be able to punish you simply for holding unorthodox views or engaging in disfavored practices (though the government can certainly find other ways to harass or penalize you, if it wishes). What happens instead is that your employer will do it for the government (or for him or herself). As the president of Barnard College put it during the McCarthy years, “If the colleges take the responsibility to do their own house cleaning, Congress would not feel it has to investigate.”

Edited March 16, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

I agree, it is absolutely outrageous that an Afghan prison would order body cavity searches of females without cause other than entering the facilities. No civilized country would ever inflict that kind of treatment on its people.

 

Wait...

[StrangeSox]

Kansas has a great new anti-abortion law:

 

Buried in a sweeping anti-abortion bill is a provision that would immunize a doctor who discovers that a baby will be born with a devastating condition and deliberately withholds that information from his patient. That's right. If the bill passes, a doctor who opposes abortion could decide to lie about the results of your blood tests, your ultrasound, your cvs or your amnio. Lie to you so that you won't have information that might lead you to decide to end your pregnancy or that might lead you to learn more about your child's condition so that you are prepared to be the best parent you can be to your child.

 

 

[Steve9347]

Kansas has a great new anti-abortion law:

That's f***ed. Society is regressing.

[StrangeSox]

yup.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's f***ed. Society is regressing.

Not all of society. Just the people in the evangelistic, religious right. The ones who have decided that freedom is a bad thing. They hold a lot of sway right now in some states, but fortunately, they are going to be routed out in November.

 

[StrangeSox]

Not all of society. Just the people in the evangelistic, religious right. The ones who have decided that freedom is a bad thing. They hold a lot of sway right now in some states, but fortunately, they are going to be routed out in November.

 

Oklahoma passed a similar bill over the veto of the governor. Arizona is considering similar legislation. Virginia has their recent terrible law. Nebraska (iirc) has a lengthy waiting period law. Since the 2010 election, there's been an unprecedented attack on abortion access and women's health.

 

 

Note that this was only mid-way through 2011 and the pace has not let up.

[NorthSideSox72]

Oklahoma passed a similar bill over the veto of the governor. Arizona is considering similar legislation. Virginia has their recent terrible law. Nebraska (iirc) has a lengthy waiting period law. Since the 2010 election, there's been an unprecedented attack on abortion access and women's health.

 

 

Note that this was only mid-way through 2011 and the pace has not let up.

And those are some pretty socially conservative states.

 

That said, in many states that are not deep south or Oklahoma, watch what happens in the 2012 elections. The Republicans had a nice election in 2010, but have overreached all over the place, and that will hurt them in a lot of states that aren't in that category.

 

Places like Oklahoma are just ass-backwards and will be that way for a long time. Which sucks for people living there.

 

[StrangeSox]

And those are some pretty socially conservative states.

 

That said, in many states that are not deep south or Oklahoma, watch what happens in the 2012 elections. The Republicans had a nice election in 2010, but have overreached all over the place, and that will hurt them in a lot of states that aren't in that category.

 

Places like Oklahoma are just ass-backwards and will be that way for a long time. Which sucks for people living there.

 

I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying here, but I think downplaying this as a fringe belief is mistaken.

 

For a horrifying look at the reality of such laws, here's one woman's experience in Texas:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/0...works-in-texas/

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying here, but I think downplaying this as a fringe belief is mistaken.

 

For a horrifying look at the reality of such laws, here's one woman's experience in Texas:

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/0...works-in-texas/

I am not saying it is fringe. I am saying that it has surged, and is now dwindling.

 

[StrangeSox]

Well the laws keep coming fast and strong so I don't know if it's really dwindling.

[StrangeSox]

[NorthSideSox72]

Well the laws keep coming fast and strong so I don't know if it's really dwindling.

Legislation is a laggard. Look at the national numbers for support of the "tea party" (or what it has turned into), and how some of these GOP governors in states NOT typically very conservative are doing. And let's see how 2012 elections go.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Jimmy Carter takes you to Sunday School. No, seriously.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/19/p...kusaolp00000008

[StrangeSox]

Paul ryan's "very serious" (and not at all completely bulls***) new budget would result in discretionary spending being cut around 80% by 2050.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/0...rious-paul-ryan

[NorthSideSox72]

Paul ryan's "very serious" (and not at all completely bulls***) new budget would result in discretionary spending being cut around 80% by 2050.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/0...rious-paul-ryan

This hyper-focus on discretionary spending, while ignoring the things that are actually causing the big budget problems (social security, medicare/caid, military, and of course interest on debt), is really getting old. Regardless of where on the political spectrum one stands, I really wish people would accept the basic facts - that non-military discretionary spending makes up a small percentage of the budget, that cuts there by themselves can't make the deficits and debt go away, and that cuts there effect everyone. Please come back to reality, folks.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

So, saying Romney is an Etch-a-Sketch that can be reset for the General Election is probably not something Romney's top adviser should say.

[StrangeSox]

Some interesting results of Walker's tea party policies in Wisconsin:

 

 

 

In other words, massive failure.