Blessed Are The Poor

Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.' (Matthew 25:41-45)

The above is but one example of the many instructions in the Bible on how God wants us to serve the poor. It's not just the New Testament either. Deuteronomy 24:14 tells us: "Do not take advantage of a hired man who is poor and needy, whether he is a brother Israelite or an alien living in one of your towns." Psalm 12:5 says: "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise, says the LORD, I will protect them from those who malign them."

And Psalm 41:1-2 states: "Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes."

In looking at all of these teachings, I'm wondering if Newt Gingrich has picked up a Bible recently or, quite frankly, has ever read one. Take a look at this.



Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and one around them who works? Are you fucking kidding me? I can't believe that we are still on this crap. What is it about this country and disdain for poor people? They're all lazy, I guess, and they don't teach their kids good values. They're poor for a reason, dammit, and how dare they stink up our country with their poor BO.

Some have suggested that Newt's comment was a dog whistle for bigots (the lazy blacks who don't work). Based on this line from a recent comment, they may be right.

What I am suggesting is that culture matters. And black culture, at this point in history, does not celebrate academic achievement.

I will never understand this mindset. I'd like to try to give folks like this the benefit of the doubt and simply say that they are massively tone deaf but perhaps I'm being too kind. This view, illustrated quite well by Newt Gingrich, is so antiquated that it makes me physically ill. What fucking country do these people live in? They claim to be Christian but what goes through their minds when they read this passage?

If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.

The New Church

Today is Sunday and many conservatives around the country will be making their way to church to worship Jesus Christ. But Christianity isn't the only religion that many of these folks practice.

At first glance, this new religion seems completely at odds with our savior. It is a system of morality "not based on faith" or emotion, "but on reason." In fact, the leader of this new religion has stated on many occasions that Christianity (and all religions in general) are parasitic weaknesses. "Man's highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own happiness," the leader of this new church has said.

What is this new religion? It's the Cult of Ayn Rand. And this recent story illustrates just how far her catechisms have permeated our government.

When I told my wife that my post about her reading of Atlas Shrugged had received 71 comments, she chuckled. "Made some people uncomfortable, eh?" We've had a few conversations about the book over the last week since she has completed reading it and both of us are still completely befuddled that the over the top characters in the book are equated with reality. "People just aren't that stupid as Rand portrays them in the book," my wife commented yesterday. "They're just so unbelievable I can't understand why anyone would fall for it." If your entire ideology is based around anger, hate, and fear, well...

What I can't understand is how one can claim to be a Christian on one hand and a Randian on the other. The two are honestly mutually exclusive. Rand talks of enlightened self interest and Jesus directs us to be as selfless as possible. Somehow, the conservative brain has melded these basic principles together to mean that the government is forcing us to do things, taking away our liberties and destroying capitalism. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

The one thing that does make sense, however, is the shared belief between Randians and those folks who believe in Republican Jesus that the world is constantly ending (see: Mike Lofgren's Apocalyptic Cult).

I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected.

That's Rand in 1959. 50+ years later and...we're still here. In fact, we've accomplished quite a bit over the last 52 years and have remained the leading innovator in the world despite Rand's cries of a boiling pit of sewage coming "soon." Yet guys like Paul Ryan, a prominent GOP leader and current fave of the Tea Party, insist upon perpetuating the lie that innovators (as in the book) are on strike. It's not just him.

"Every time you submit to a regulation, it diminishes your liberty," says Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, speaking just off the House floor a few weeks ago. King says he loves Rand.

"If you start to demonize a certain segment of your society that are the producers, eventually they'll stop," says Allen West, a Tea Party favorite.

Freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a South Carolina Republican, has read Rand's novels six or eight times each."It's almost frightening how accurate a prediction of the future the book was," Mulvaney says.

Accurate? Really? I guess Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Chen, Chad Hurley, Jawed Karim, Bill Gates, Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Steve Jobs (just to name a few) didn't get that memo on the demonization and the apocalypse.

It truly is a bizarre world they live in and when folks like King and Mulvaney proclaim to also be Christian, I have to wonder if they were kicked in the head a few times as youths.Or, perhaps they skipped over the parts in the Bible where Jesus said things.

Actually, I wonder sometimes if I've been kicked in the head as soon as recently in comments when I'm told that it's simply "less" government they want (but can't really seem to define what that means specifically), not "no" government but then embrace this view from Rand, who said, in a question about taxes, "That's right. I am opposed to all forms of control. I am for an absolute, laissez-faire, free, unregulated economy."

So which is it?

In looking at all of this, there's much more delusion going on and it's much deeper than I originally thought. Leading members of the GOP think that our country is constantly being destroyed and that the last 50 years of astronomical innovation never happened. They also think that one can be a Christian and also be a Randian. And, as always, if you don't believe any of this, then you are a Marxist.

As Gandhi said, "The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear."

They Really Said That?

If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will get a nuclear weapon. If we elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not.---------GOP Contender Mitt Romney.

The ‘Great Society’ has not worked and it’s put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…They don’t have the modern welfare state and China’s growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they’d be gone.-------GOP Contender Michele Bachmann

Regarding the first quote, I'm please to see that Mitt is not resorting to fear mongering.

Regarding the second quote, I...well...there's nothing else I could add to it really, right?

Her Ignorance Is As Good As My Knowledge

The most horrifying part of this video is when she talks about brainwashing. Heaven help us...

The Insider

A while back, Nikto put up a post questioning his chiding of me  when I had referred to the current form of the GOP as a cult. I had decided before that to end the use of the word "cult" in reference to right wingers. I have to admit that this has been difficult what with the shoe fitting and all. Opinion pieces by Richard Cohen are flattering but still are just that-opinions.

But now that Mike Lofgren (left), a GOP Congressional Staffer who focused on budget and national security issues for 28 years, has released his Manzi-like analysis of the right, it seems that my initial assertions have been fully validated. To say that his piece is brilliant is the understatement of the political season. He sums up everything I have been saying for years on this blog.

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe.

Gee, I wonder which country he is referring to?:) Lofgren's piece goes beyond what I said because he saw all of this for himself. In other words, he is a primary source.  which means we have now gone past folks like Cohen and me and we are now starting to hear first hand experiences.

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

I'd say "Mission Accomplished" on this front. Congress's approval rating stands at 11 percent. He goes on to state the obvious (the Tea Party is "filled with lunatics") and reveal a sad truth (the GOP used a routine debt ceiling vote to create“an entirely artificial fiscal crisis.”) Of course, the GOP aren't his only targets.

The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks.

I'd go along with most of that. The problem with the health care bill was the corporations and the Democrats horse shit way of packaging it. Lofgren has a great line about this as well.

Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

Hmm...I think someone listened on that last one:)

It's important to note that Lofgren recognizes the contrast here.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

Lofgren's piece is lengthy so that's certainly enough for now. I'll be taking pieces of it over the next few weeks and throwing it out in smaller posts with commentary because it's just that amazing.

Not only do I feel validated about my previous thoughts regarding conservatives but my inkling to go back to referring to the right as a Cult has mostly vanished. After all, we've got insiders like Mike Lofgren out there now.

I wonder how many more will start popping up as the election gets closer and the prospect of putting one of these "lunatics" in the White House gets closer to reality.

Cheering Voices In My Head

Listen for the cheering at about the one minute mark after Wolf asks his follow up question.



Must be a whole bunch of voices in my head!

Two Voices In My Head

It's been awhile since Rush Limbaugh has been on anyone's radar. That means it's time to haul out something racist.



And while we are on the subject of food...Sarah Palin recently confirmed, in an email discussing her attendance at the Iowa State Fair, just how much the right are like 8 year old boys.

I’m excited to try some of that famous fried butter-on-a-stick, fried cheesecake-on-a-stick, fried Twinkies, etc...in honor of those who’d rather make us just ‘eat our peas.’

WAAHHHH!!!! I don't wanna!!!

Yet Another Voice In My Head

Just got back from lifting at the gym. While I was there, I got into a conversation about the state of our culture with one of my conservative friends named Erica. Recall that Edward, Sean and Katie are my other three conservative friends from the gym. Erica is one that I generally don't talk politics with as she has readily admitted that she "hates to read political books and just lets her husband give her the cliff's notes."

We were talking today about overweight children and how their parents seem to enable it. This led to an overall discussion about entitlement which led to her saying the following.

I mean...like...people who are on welfare have diamond rings and flat screen TVs...what's up with that?

When I said that corporate welfare was much worse, she gave me a quizzical look.

Ah yes, another Voice In My Head.

Will The New Carl Sagan Please Stand Up?

A recent opinion piece in the Christian Science Monitor echoes some things I have been saying recently about climate change skeptics. As is often the case with their other views, the climate change skeptic locks in and does not waver. There is no point in bringing up evidence, facts, peer reviewed journals or any other information grounded in the scientific method. They will always have an answer that contradicts because that's what true believers do.

Instead, heed the points of Andrew Hoffman. He begins be defining the playing field.

One of the strongest predictors of an American's beliefs about global warming is political party affiliation. According to a 2009 Pew survey, 75 percent of Democrats believe there is solid evidence of global warming compared with only 35 percent of Republicans.

Climate change has been enmeshed in the culture wars where beliefs in science often align with beliefs on abortion, gun control, health care, evolution, or other issues that fall along the contemporary political divide. This was not the case in the 1990s and is not the case in Europe. This is a distinctly American phenomenon.

I find this terribly sad but it is true. Moving on....

For skeptics, climate change is inextricably tied to a belief that climate science and policy are a covert way for liberal environmentalists and the government to diminish citizens' personal freedom.

True but that's how they are with everything. They's a comin' to gin us!

A second prominent theme is a strong faith in the free market, an overriding fear that climate legislation will hinder economic progress, and a suspicion that green jobs and renewable energy are ploys to engineer the market.

This is even more prevalent than the first point. Odd, because one would think that an emerging market would be something they would get behind. Of course, they wouldn't if it meant they were proved wrong about something.

The most intriguing theme is strong distrust of the scientific peer-review process and of scientists themselves: "Peer review" turns into "pal review," and establishment scientist-editors only publish work by those whose scientific research findings agree with their own. Scientists themselves are seen as intellectual elites, studying issues that are beyond the reach of the ordinary person's scrutiny. This should not come as a surprise, although it seems to have mystified many climate scientists.

This is what I hear the most on here. It's an excellent example of propaganda and extremely disappointing that many people have fallen for this. That's what you get with Jupiter size hubris.

So what do we do about it?

The focus of the discussion must move away from positions (climate change is or is not happening) and toward the underlying interests and values at play. It must engage at the deeper ideological levels where resistance is taking place, using new ways to frame the argument to bridge both sides.

For example, when US Energy Secretary Steven Chu refers to advances in renewable-energy technology in China as America's "Sputnik moment," he is framing climate change as a common threat to economic competitiveness. When Pope Benedict links the threat of climate change with threats to life and dignity, he is painting it as an issue of religious morality.

When the Military Advisory Board, a group of retired military officers, refers to climate change as a "threat multiplier," it is using a national-security frame.

And when the Pew Center refers to climate change as an issue of risk management, it is promoting climate insurance just as homeowners buy fire insurance. This is the way to engage the debate; not hammering skeptics with more data and expressing dismay that they don't get it.

Completely true. If we frame the issue as one of economic competitiveness, morality, national security, and insurance, we take the reality of what is happening into realms that clearly affect people's lives. Having a socially awkward person of science trying to explain climate change to your average citizen-especially one who believes we are becoming Russia-will fail every day. If, however, they see how our society's various institutions are reacting to this and they hear it from someone who is socially easy to deal with, the paradigm shift we need will occur.

As Hoffman says, we need another Carl Sagan.

Oh, and as a simple PS, I thought I would throw in this quote from his piece.

I and many of my colleagues are regular recipients of climate-skeptic hate mail and a few of us have even received death threats.

Hmph. Must be another "Voice Inside My Head."

Voices in My Head

Ah, the adolescent power fantasy on full display. Isn't Kevin Baker a fan of Allen West? Makes perfect sense.

Submissive?

Listen to this quote from Marcus Bachmann, husband of GOP presidential hopeful, Michele Bachmann.



I'll leave the jokes about how Marcus Bachmann is so clearly gay to the stand up comics.

Of course, my first reaction to this was to question whether or not this was a voice inside my head:) After I realized (like so many other voices) that it was, in fact, real, I thought about something that Ms. Bachmann said a while back. In a speech to congregants of the the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. “The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands,” she said.

So, does that mean that if she is elected she will start homosexual re-education camps for the barbarians?

More importantly, if she is submissive to her husband, won't that mean that he is the actual president? And an unelected one at that!

A Fourth of July Voice Inside My Head

I find it highly amusing the deep need that some have for me to comment again on Kevin Baker's site. A couple of them email me every new post that he puts up. Odd, considering each one essentially torpedoes the "voices in my head" bit.

Take this latest one, for example.

First of all, huh? I've never heard of this. I love the 4th of July and celebrate just like everyone else. And what a fine example of adolescent behavior we have here as well. So much for claiming to be "adults."

No, stupid fucking liberals, I fucking will not shrink from embracing the beauty and freedom encased in our Celebration of Independence.

Wow. Nice 8 year old boy with a temper tantrum drawing at the end as well, "voice" in my head.

Happy 4th everyone!

How Would You Choose?

There's a pretty easy way to tell the difference between me and the current incarnation of the conservative movement in this country. If my only two choices were John Huntsman and Dennis Kucinch, I'd vote for the former. This is assuming I must choose. Now, given a choice between Barack Obama and Michele Bachmann, who do you suppose the right would vote for if they had to choose?

If you had to choose, who would YOU pick?

Not only does the answer speak volumes about who is more open minded but it also torpedoes the "both sides" argument.

The Conversation (Part The Third)

Wrapping up my conversation with Jim.

Mark: I took a day or so to think about this thread and re-read the comments as you asked and basically I'm more confused than ever. On the one hand you say that it's OK to disagree with you yet on the other hand you seem very offended if I do so. On the one hand you say " I'm tired of being the target for your bashing of some generic conservative stereotype you've created in your mind" and then bring up Sowell and say "It's helped me understand why liberals think the way they do." That seems contradictory. Thomas Sowell is a monumentally biased source when it comes to examining things of this nature. It would be the same thing if I used Howard Zinn as an example and said it would help you to understand how conservatives think.

I've thought about what you said regarding my arrogance and I think the problem is neither liberal or conservative. It may just be who each of us are as people. I thought of a way to best illustrate a key difference between us.

Ann has shared stories of how much of a handy man you are around the house and in general. I don't have much experience nor expertise in doing things like this and if we were to ever build something together I would not in the least bit be offended if you said things like "Think bigger...you're not using your spatial intelligence....look at it from this angle...." Or even "you're spouting (the carpentry version of) dogma." You have a greater knowledge and expertise in this area so I think it's fine for you to say them. I, however, have a greater knowledge set and experience in the area of education. So, when I said the things I did I was hoping you would think similarly as I would if we were building something.

I was wrong about this because you were offended and I apologize. I also wrongly assumed that because of our discussion (last October when I was in town) about Juan Williams being fired from NPR that you were weary of people that were offended all the time at everything and that people should just be free to say what's on their mind. Again, my mistake and I apologize for assuming things that I shouldn't have assumed.

Obviously, I still want to be your FB friend and I enjoy your other posts just as much if not more so than the political ones. I still laugh when I see an iPad and think about your women's hygiene joke post. Some of helped me a great deal spiritually and I thank you kindly for them. So, I guess until a I get some clarity and out of respect for your wishes, I will not comment on your political threads so we can hopefully avoid any misunderstandings and hurt feelings.

Jim: Mark, thanks for your engagement on this and your desire to not create conflict.

I think this misunderstanding does go to who we are as people -- we see things differently, and come to different conclusions. We have different ideas about human nature, the size and role of government, unions, corporations, individuals, and families; how free or controlled the economy should be; how to balance individual initiative and responsibility with compassion and justice.

Your analogy about carpentry is both helpful and unhelpful. We can't really debate whether an angle is 90 degrees, or whether a certain spacing of joists will carry a given weight load. But we can debate how to best design a deck, what it should look like, what you want it to accomplish, how much it should cost, or even how to build it once you have the plans.

But you pretty consistently argue as though there is only one right answer -- yours -- on education, the economy, unions, welfare programs, corporations, tax policy, and on and on. And anyone who disagrees with you can only disagree because they're not as educated, informed, or open-minded. What you communicate is that anyone who is intelligent and thoughtful will have to come to the same conclusions you do. You treat every subject as though your opinions and perspectives are obvious, factual, and indisputable -- like whether an angle is 90 degrees. But intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded people can (and do) disagree widely about education, taxation, government power, social policy, and any number of things.

You need to be able to accept that my disagreement with you cannot simply be chalked up to ignorance, blindness, naivete, or ideological rigidity. I could just as reasonably say the same things about your disagreeing with me. But all that does is reinforce self-perceptions of wisdom and goodness, and let us think that people disagree with me only for bad reasons. That's what I mean when I talk about arrogance. It's arrogant to say "I'm the expert on education; I have the right insights and answers, and anyone who is intelligent will agree with me."

I would bet that I know the Bible better than you and most people. Yet I'm not offended that people disagree with me about it or interpret it differently than I do. Different people see things differently - it's simply a fact of life. What's offensive is when someone tells me that I have no good reason to disagree with their interpretation; that my understanding of Scripture is only based on ignorance, foolishness, or blind partisanship. That's what you consistently do in discussions on any number of issues. There's no room for honest disagreement based on different ways of looking at things.

Which leads me to the Sowell thing. It's frustrating that you have decided without even five minutes of research that because Sowell is a conservative he is incapable of presenting opposing views fairly. You admit you haven't read the book, so you clearly can't know what you're talking about. But once again, you've declared yourself an expert on this, so you don't even need to look at the reviews or a book synopsis. Sowell is simply beneath you. If you could step outside your partisan corner, you'd discover that the book I recommended is a well-regarded, scholarly analysis of the roots of modern political conflict in which Sowell examines source writings from some of the greatest economic and moral philosophers from all over the spectrum. Maybe you've read Sowell's opinions pieces and feel he's too partisan? You do realize it's possible to disagree with someone and still present their ideas fairly? I haven't read much of Sowell's op-ed work, but I am willing to accept that people can write in a differently based on the setting and format.

For someone who claims to be an expert on education and aspires to be an educator, the uninformed dismissal of a work you've prejudged to be unworthy of your consideration is discouraging and a little inexplicable. I regularly read people I know I'm going to disagree with. Isn't that supposed to be part of having an open mind -- of learning?

And the great irony of it is that Sowell does a great job of highlighting those different values, goals and outcomes people work towards in society -- rooted in different ways of looking at life. Sowell is not trying to say one is better than the other. They're just different. But understanding those different ways of looking at society, family, government, community, the economy, education, justice, etc. keeps us from becoming locked into thinking that "my way is best and everyone who is smart and good will agree with me." I suggested the book not to get you to agree with me or to make you read a liberal-bashing screed (why would you think I would, anyway?), but to help you understand why conservatives disagree with you, and why it doesn't mean they're stupid, uninformed, naive, foolish, or close-minded.

In any case, I appreciate your response and your apology, and I'd like to think that we can still be friends -- if there really is a basis of mutual respect to build on.

So, what did I take away from all of this? The first two things are entirely non political.

Whenever I am in a situation where my knowledge is lacking, I defer to the person who knows more about the subject. Jim does indeed know more about handy man work and would have no problem if he called me out on speaking with a misinformed tongue. But that's who I am not who he is. This means that I was really lacking empathy.

And regardless of where you are politically, some people don't like it when someone knows more than they do. I've had the same type of discussions with people on the left. If they quickly realize that I know more about a subject and I point out the deficiencies in their argument, they react as Jim did. I have no problem saying, "I can't speak to that subject because my knowledge is lacking." Others like Jim can get insecure about someone with a greater knowledge base and then become offended quickly. Clearly with Jim, I hit a nerve...one that he is insecure about. Again, this demonstrates a lack of empathy on my part and I should've realized to massively alter the way I communicate if I want to get my point across.

Odd, of course, because I thought he was tired of everyone being offended by everything. But I still take the blame for that because it's never a good idea to assume especially with subject matter like this.

The very frustrating part of all of this is by blowing a bowel the way he did about my conservative propaganda comment he is absolved from responsibility of saying something short sighted. In the deleted comment, one of the things I said centered around the fact that when you talk about unions, cronyism, and bloated bureaucracy, that's GOP dogma 101. There's no other way to describe it. Sorry, folks, but he has to take ownership of those words and by characterizing me the way he did (as some of you do all the time) it takes advantage of my natural tendencies as a liberal. I'll sit back and think about...wondering..."Hmm, maybe I am that way." If I then admit it, that absolves him of making an asinine statement like that and the problem was really me all along.

Essentially, if I call you on your BS, then you can just say that I am arguing with the voices in my head. It's quite a clever avoidance and denial tactic but it doesn't change the fact that they are your words. With Jim, notice how the conversation quickly became about me personally and the lack of honesty in his statement was long forgotten. This is the game playing that I have grown quite tired of as it wastes time and doesn't solve the problem which, in this case, is very important.

So, it's a fine line that I have to walk. I will try to be empathetic and likely consider alternative ways of communication with those who are like Jim. At the same time, however, I'm not going to ignore blatant propaganda out of fear of being personally attacked. The last time this sort of thing was ignored or treated lightly we ended up...well...where we are now.

The Conversation (Part The Second)

Continuing the FB discussion with my friend Jim.

Mark: Well, it's your page which means I have no say in what you keep or delete so no offense taken whatsoever. Let's see if we can look at this from another angle. Take a look at this story.

Teacher Blogged About 'Rat-Like' Students

In one posting on her blog she called her students, "out of contol," and "rude, lazy, disengaged whiners."

How exactly do the unions, bureaucracy and political cronyism cause this? What this women describes happens quite often in classrooms. While I find some of the things she said a bit harsh, she's mostly on the mark. This is what teachers have to deal with every day, Jim. Every day. The origin of this problem is a much larger problem with our entire society. It's a failure of parents, community leaders, schools, and peer groups. This is what happens when you allow the mass media to socialize your children.

Go to a school and ask young people to tell you...honestly...if they think they could win American Idol. You will be shocked by the answer. This is what they have been brought up to believe is LIKELY to happen. We have become a quite a bizarre culture when people think that the solution to their problems is winning the lottery.

So, when you characterize the education system in the way you do, you miss key points. Referring me to Sowell is simply further proof that you have embraced an ideology which excuses, encourages and falsely justifies dismissing any liberal point of view. This isn't arrogance on my part but encouragement to continue the work that you are doing in your community.

Essentially, the key problem with education is our overly indulgent society. We don't recognize the importance of education anymore. It's the Michael Jordan Generation. Yesterday, Jim put this video up on his FB wall.



"We want to pay you millions of dollars so we can avoid solving our problems." The last minute and a half or so is the MJG exactly. Until this changes, "failing" schools are going to continue to fail. Of course, he doesn't see this connection.

Jim: Mark, you are again missing the point. The point is not the article about schools, or what's going on in schools. If you'd tried to fairly read what I actually said, you'd see that we share a lot in common. But you are quick to misrepresent and then dismiss any viewpoint with which you disagree. It's lazy, simplistic, dishonest, and arrogant, and it makes discussion impossible.

And now you assert that I've embraced an ideology which dismisses liberal points of view -- because I read a book by Sowell? What is more illiberal than dismissing a book one hasn't read with an easy ad hominem attack? "Oh, it's by Sowell. I already know what it says." Who has the closed mind?

Yet you've decided that I'm the unthinking doctrinaire. And it's obvious that's what you've thought for a while, given your usual dismissal of anything that doesn't validate your views, and your unwillingness to even try to understand why people think differently from you -- you already know why. They can't have arrived at their beliefs through thoughtful analysis or reason; people who disagree with you are simply unthinking dupes and narrow-minded ideologues.

You don't shout people down with a bullhorn like the street-level illiberal thugs, but the effect is just the same.

Since you really believe that I've embraced an ideology which justifies dismissing liberal views (ironic, given that's what you're doing to me), then there really is no point in further discussion.

I'd like to be your friend, but friendship is based on trust and respect -- neither of which you have for me.

Mark: I don't think that about you at all, Jim. I really don't. You have focused in on the criticisms and ignored the compliments. Please go back and read the positives and weigh them accordingly with the other points. I would also urge you to read these words.

I do agree that there are problems with unions, bureaucracy and cronyism. But that is only a part of a much larger problem. Liberal and progressive points of view do have merit and I think you need to ask yourself if Sowell would accept any of them. Honestly, he wouldn't. I have read him extensively and it's frustrating to me that you would use him as an example for parameters that you are quite clearly beyond.

I can't stress this enough. Without you, a community would be lost. That's how much of an effect that someone like you can have in what ails our society!

Jim: Mark, that is exactly and clearly what you communicate. Go back and re-read your comments. The compliments mean little when what you repeatedly express is arrogant dismissal, scornful disdain, and the most uncharitable reading of what I write. I don't recognize hardly anything I believe in the words you put in my mouth. I'm tired of being the target for your bashing of some generic conservative stereotype you've created in your mind.

I have a hard time thinking of a situation in which you have taken seriously the appeals like this which I've made to you -- appeals to step outside your wordlview and try to fairly understand and interact with others who disagree with you. I've not said liberal points of view are without merit; you are the one who is incapable of granting that conservative views can have any merit. You consistently communicate that conservatives only hold their positions through ignorance, apathy, selfishness, and naivete. You've just told me that in this discussion, in fact.

I'm being defensive, or intemperate? You've told me that if I thought harder and looked more broadly at issues, if I studied as you have, then I could come to the insights you've reached. But since I haven't (which you know, how?), I'm only capable of spouting GOP dogma. Again, your assumption is that any thinking person who looks at an issue will agree with you. It's hard to imagine a more disrespectful, dismissive, arrogant response.

Until you can demonstrate any willingness to understand, fairly articulate, and respectfully interact with opposing viewpoints, I'm not interested in discussion. The door is open anytime you want to walk through it on those terms.

I had one more response after this which he has since responded to and I will put them both up tomorrow.

The Conversation (Part The First)

I have two friends that are evangelical ministers. The first one is my friend from the gym (Edward) and the other is a guy named Jim. Jim is married to my first ever girlfriend and lives in a different state. He and I are Facebook friends and we often have political debates. He is very, VERY conservative and I've noticed our debates usually follow a similar pattern as they do here.

This is a real drag for me because I'm far less obnoxious on FB than I am here and I really like the guy. I have made a concerted effort to be as fair minded as possible but I've sadly come to the conclusion that when someone (liberal or conservative) knows less about a subject AND is very passionate about it, look out! That's when things become seriously FUBAR.

We recently had a debate about education and, as it usually does, I pointed out some of his BS and the conversation degenerated from there. What's even more odd is that he has told me several times (on FB and in person) that he is sick and tired of people being offended by everything. He couldn't stand it, for example, when Juan Williams got fired over his airplane comment. Being PC is not his thing yet he still reacted the way he did when I was critical of him.

The whole conversation was very confusing so I figured I'd share it with all of you and hear your thoughts. The topics in education that are raised are reason enough to copy and paste it. In addition to being a "voice inside of my head," I think it is very illustrative of several things which I will comment on as we go along. Jim's posts are in blue and mine are in red because I'm a communist who wants to pollute children's minds with leftist views and propaganda meant to destroy the very fabric of our culture.

He started with this post followed by a  link.

Jim: As Albert Shanker, the late, iconic head of the UFT, once pointedly put it, 'When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of schoolchildren.'

The Failure of American Schools

The failing schools meme is getting quite tiresome to me. Nearly all of the examples given aren't fully illustrative of the various complexities involved with the challenges in education today. Worse, they ignore the success stories because they don't fit the narrative.

Mark: There's a much larger issue here than just the go to whipping boy of unions. The way our children are being socialized has been over run by the corporate owned mass media. With many parents checked out for a wide variety of reasons (good and bad), educative and community leaders can't compete with the glitter of materialism. As an educator, I know I lose every time against LeBron James and Beyonce. Until parents and community leaders re-assert themselves as the primary agents of socialization, union problems won't matter.
That's why what you do in your community is so important, Jim. You and I are on the front lines. Now we need more people like us to make it better!

Jim: I agree that a materialistic culture and uninvolved parents are part of the problem, but it's pretty discouraging (although not surprising) to hear a teacher blithely dismiss the massive problems with union cronyism, self-interest, protection of terrible teachers, and total unconcern with educational outcomes.

Please also note that charter schools operating with the same demographic mix and social realities of public schools have produced embarrassingly better outcomes.

Mark: Of course they have because the parents are more involved. Parents that send their kids to charter schools are the same ones that put in the effort. That's why I've always been supportive of home schooling because the parents are pro-active. Honestly, we need more of it.

I think your example here is an outlier although there are problems with unions. The biggest one is tenure. I also support the president and Secretary Duncan in their efforts with Race to the Top and CORE. Under performing teachers need to be fired immediately.

In the final analysis, though, it comes down to parent and community involvement. Our children's school works well because people are involved.

Not so bad so far but I could tell from past experience that once I pointed out to him the fact about charter schools, things weren't going to go well. Someone else in the thread also pointed out that fired teachers in public schools sometimes end up in charter schools. Being wrong=big no no!

Now we get to the good stuff.

Jim: And key roadblocks to the parental involvement which contributes to to academic success are intransigent unions, self-serving politicians, and a bloated educational bureaucracy. There will always be a percentage of dysfunctional families or disengaged parents. The current failing system discourages and disenfranchises the parents who could be involved and making a difference in their kids' success. And that failing system is set up to protect the interests of unions, politicians and bureaucrats who rabidly attack any attempt to change the status quo.

Mark: Well, now you are slipping into conservative propaganda and I'm going to have to disagree with you that this is the totality of the problem. Unions discourage parent involvement? That's simply not true. Ask a few teachers if they find themselves doing more parenting these days. Ask them what they think about that

Again, I will agree that unions have problems and tenure needs to go. I will also wholeheartedly agree that more money is not the answer. We need the right people willing to put in the time with the right attitude which is looking at themselves like overpaid missionaries and not underpaid teachers. Have you examined the efforts of the president and the education department?

Jim: Mark, I can't take you seriously when you respond with silly comments like "You're slipping into conservative propaganda." You're hearing what you want to hear and filtering my comments through your own biases.

You say in one breath that unions and politics are part of the problem, but then turn around and say that getting rid of them wouldn't make any difference. That's incoherent. If you really believe that we'd have the same problems in education without self-serving unions, political cronyism, and entrenched bureaucrats, then there's no point in talking.

After this, I left a comment which I regret not cutting, pasting and saving because he deleted it.  The gist of the comment centered around how schools would look without unions, how I was tired of union bashing, and how he should try to not narrow his focus so much and look more at the complexities of the situation. He then sent me a FB message which said this.

Jim: Mark, I deleted your last comment. You clearly communicated that your positions have been arrived at through careful thought, open-minded investigation, and big-picture thinking (like most liberals), while my positions are merely small-minded, single-focus repetitions of "conservative dogma." You've not even attempted to fairly read what I wrote, but simply read it through the filter of your own preconceived biases. This has become par for the course.

I'm not offended that you disagree with me; it's that your disagreement is consistently unlined with an arrogance which says I would agree with you if only I thought a little harder and expanded my vision. There's no ground for friendship or even working together from that starting point. You tell me you respect me and what I do, but you consistently interact with me as though I'm an ignorant fool who can't have arrived at his positions through thoughtful reflection.

I'm telling you this because I like you and seem in many ways like a genuinely good guy. But your intellectual arrogance, uncharitable reading of what I post, and cavalier dismissal of differing viewpoints are rude and offensive. It makes it hard to have any kind of relationship other than that of a sparring partner, which I'm not looking for.

We're coming at issues from different starting points. I suggest you read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" if you haven't already. It's helped me understand why liberals think the way they do. It would help you understand how conservatives think, so you might be less likely to dismiss, disdain, and scorn their viewpoints because they're different from yours.

Ah, Sowell. He had to come up, didn't he? I also knew that things were going to get worse when I started talking about the corporate owned mass media. I'll never for the life of me understand how people have mixed capitalism and Christianity. Any sort of attack on corporations is considered heresy. It's fucking nauseating.

I'll have the rest of the conversation up tomorrow.

Yet Another One

Hmmm...I must be imagining this..it must be...a voice inside my head.

He Won

The more I think about it, the more I realize that those of you who say that it's not President Obama's skin that is the problem are actually right. It's not the fact that he's black. It's that he won. And continues to win.

Take a look at two recent Facebook cut-and-pastes that have been making the rounds.

Let's be clear on this: OBAMA did NOT kill Bin Laden. An American soldier, who Obama just a few weeks ago was debating on whether or not to PAY, did. Obama just happened to be the one in office when our soldiers finally found Bin Laden and took him out. This is NOT an Obama victory, but an AMERICAN victory.

and

A HUGE THANK YOU to our military, who have sacrificed, died, suffered, and worked hard, to fight people like Osama Bin Laden. YOU are the ones we thank. YOU are the ones who deserve ALL CREDIT. Thank a soldier for bringing due justice for those lost on 9/11 and all the victims around the world who suffered from his commands. Copy and paste if you agree....

Ah, childish dishonesty. There really is no finer example. Peel this back a layer (wafer thin) and one can easily see that they are pissed off that he succeeded.

When you tout yourself as the party of fiscal responsibility and national security and then go on to fail miserably at both, this is what you are left with in the end.

A Voice In My Head (on steroids!)

This past weekend, I was at my gym working out as I often am. Up sauntered the merry little band of true believers that hang out with me and BS politics. We have the doctor (Sean), the evangelical pastor (Edward), the retired gym teacher (Katie) and the female body builder (Erica). Erica is married to a one of the chief Tea Partiers in Minnesota and actually used to be super liberal. But she married him and suddenly she was super conservative. I guess it's not surprising. After all, she simply traded one naive idealistic viewpoint for another.

I've talked about these folks for quite some time using different names but the names I listed above (not the real ones, obviously) are going to stay the same from now on. They've said too many "wonderful" things over the years that it's high time I got more organized and used them as demonstrative characters. Granted, they aren't representative of the whole of the conservative movement but they do say things that echo many of the things I hear on here all the time. In essence, they are the perfect true believers. More importantly, they are testimonials to the effect that there are no voices inside my head:)

This last conversation got into spending right away. Edward made his usual comments about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme (he doesn't even say "like" a Ponzi Scheme anymore), Sean was his usual rage filled self hating everything Obama does, and Katie had quite a bit to say about Planned Parenthood (all they do is provide abortions) as well as the "drive by" media. Erica didn't really say much but threw in a comment about libtards before she left.

It was right after this that the following conversation occurred.

Katie: It scares me to death that you teach our children, Mark.
Me: Why?
Katie: Because you are a communist.
Me: I'm not a communist.
Katie: Yes, you are. The things you say...you are a communist.
Me: No, I assure you I'm a capitalist. And it's not my job to share my opinions when I'm in class. I'm more interested in my students' opinions and moving them to a higher level on Bloom's Taxonomy. It's enough work to get them to pay attention, be inspired, and get their work done.
Katie: But you can't help it, though. Your ideas just ooze out...you are a communist...and it frightens me that you teach our children. 

Katie was adamant and there was really no convincing her that I wasn't a commie so I told her to try not to let fear rule her life and think a little more critically about politics. She then started going off about GE paying no taxes and Obama being in their back pocket which I actually took as a sign of progress as well as further proof that their is some  potential for common ground between someone like me and her. But then she went back to personally insulting me and screaming about taking our country back so I went off to do some cardio.

The whole exchange, especially the end where she angrily called for taking our country back, made me think of a scenario which I'm going to throw out to all of you. I'm certainly going to present her with it as well at some point. I started to reflect on her statements and realized that she was directing most of her venom at me (a teacher) and the media. Whenever folks narrow their rage at the those two outlets of information, I can't help but think about how those were items #1 and #2 on the list in Germany circa 1933. So, here's my scenario.

Suppose a candidate comes along named John Smith. He is the living embodiment of a perfect conservative. He is your ideal candidate. Now, I know we have some variation with conservatives here so each of you imagine your perfect guy. This guy has the backing a very large group of people and is accumulating so much support that he has enough power to run the country exactly how you want him to run it. In other words, there are enough like minded people for him to run the country as a single and authoritative body.

Given that he embodies perfectly your ideology, would you support him in this endeavor? Be honest. Remember, he is going to do everything you want him to do. He has "taken the country back" and is carrying your ideology into action. I'll put up what I would do tomorrow.

Wonder Why Our Country Is Broke?

The above was the title of an email forward courtesy of Last in Line. Clearly, Last sent this to me to get my goat and does not subscribe to the titanic level of racism contained in it. But I guess I'm wondering what some of you think of it. Regardless of what my readers think, though, this is another fine example of a "Voice Inside My Head." This is where a lot of the anti tax, Tea Partier shit originates.

The bread winner in the family....interesting!

Bread Winner...


I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20s came to the ER with her 8thpregnancy. She stated, "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family."
He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. It goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Child and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care.


The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois .


Total yearly income:
$144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs.. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" for the family.
This is how the ruling class spends our tax dollars.
Sebastian J. Ciancio, M.D. Urologist, Danville Polyclinic, LTD
Is this a GREAT COUNTRY or what...
Don't forget to pay your taxes!!!
There are a lot of “Breadwinners” depending on you & me