Silly Tea Party! Everyone knows that penis-shaped cakes are for birthdays, not weddings!

(Via Cake Wreks)

From the Headlines:

Tea Party Leader: Arizona Veto Enslaves Christians into Baking Giant Penis Cakes 

Bill O’Reilly: A woman can’t be leader of the free world because of a ‘gender deficiency’ 

Maine Republican regrets saying men should rape women if abortion is legal

More On Sarah Palin

Hey, remember when Sarah Palin said this?

Our vets have proven that they have not been timid, so we will not be timid in calling out any who would use our military, our vets, as pawns in a political game.

I touched on this yesterday.

Guess who else thinks she's the one using our nation's vets as pawns?  The organizers of the march she and the tea party "hijacked" (their term, not mine, though it certainly fits).  Take a look from their webpage:

The political agenda put forth by a local organizer in Washington DC was not in alignment with our message. We feel disheartened that some would seek to hijack the narrative for political gain. The core principle is about all Americans honoring Veterans in a peaceful and apolitical manner.

So I ask in passing, who's using the vets as pawns in a political game?

• Sarah Palin
• Ted Cruz
• The Tea Party
• The GOP
• Anyone else who brought about (or who supported) the governmental shutdown but is now protesting the barricades at the veterans' memorials

I'll let Martin Bashir sum it all up fer y'inz:

It’s time now to clear the air, and in today’s edition of pretense and hypocrisy, we bring you an act of such brazen dishonesty and speciousness that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Couldn't have put it better myself.  But I guess that's why Bashir gets the big bucks to be on TV and I'm late for my office job.

So WHO Could Have Stopped The Shutdown BUT DIDN'T?

This happened this weekend (from FoxNews)

Veterans marched on Sunday in Washington in protest of the partial government shutdown that has kept them and other Americans from visiting war memorials across the country, with support from several star conservatives.

“This is the people's memorial,” Texas Sen. Ted Cruz told a crowd of several hundred gathered near the WWII Memorial on the closed National Mall, which has become a national symbol of the shutdown and the country’s response. “Simple question: Why is the federal government spending money to keep veterans out of the memorial? Why did they spend money to keep people out of Mount Vernon, Mount Rushmore? Our veterans should be above political games.”

Yes, they should be.  But it's the Ted Cruz and the Republicans who are playing right now.  You'll see in a minute.

Then there's this from the Wall Street Journal:

“Mr. Obama, Take down this fence,” yelled Aaron Everett of Pittsburgh, Pa. Asked why he was there, he said, “I don’t want to be told what I have to buy or what memorials I can’t see.” Several protesters said they sought to impeach the president and that they blamed him for the government shutdown.

You'll note the Reagan paraphrase as well the (possible) reference to the Individual Mandate section of the Affordable Care Act (which his news sources has failed to inform Mr Everett that it is actually an idea from the Scaife-funded Conservative Heritage Foundation).  Then there's the call for impeachment.  Why?  What's the high crime and/or misdemeanor?

Didn't they know that the House Republican leadership could have stopped the shutdown but didn't?

Let's go see how.

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Late on the night of Sept. 30, with the federal government just hours away from shutting down, House Republicans quietly made a small change to the House rules that blocked a potential avenue for ending the shutdown.

And here's the rule in it's original shut-down form this is "Clause 4 of Rule XXII" of the House Rules:

When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.

TPM explains:

In other words, if the House and Senate are gridlocked as they were on the eve of the shutdown, any motion from any member to end that gridlock should be allowed to proceed. Like, for example, a motion to vote on the Senate bill. That's how House Democrats read it.

And this is how they changed it:

Any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59 may be offered only by the Majority Leader or his designee.[Emphasis added.]

Meaning:

So unless House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) wanted the Senate spending bill to come to the floor, it wasn't going to happen. And it didn't.

And Speaker Boehner could end the shutdown today if he wanted to.  He has the votes to end it but still chooses not to.

Of course it's all here:

Of course it is.

It's their party and they'll do what they want

Congressman Mike Doyle Knows His Internet Memes!

And puts them to great use -- good on him!

Can I burn down your house? No Just the 2nd floor? No Garage? No Let's talk about what I can burn down. No YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) October 2, 2013

UPDATE: And Congress just went into recess because of reports of shots fired near/around the Capitol--so much for a lighthearted post...

An interview with a member of the Tea Party Caucus in the House

Shutdown

Yes, the federal government has been shut down. Here's Jon Stewart's great take on it. The only thing missing from it is the fact that there are enough votes in the House to pass a clean Senate bill. The blame lies with 30 to 60 representatives--call them, oh I don't know, TEA PARTY members--and House Speaker John Boehner who fears them.

 (If you're in Pittsburgh, you can learn more about the Affordable Care Act at this event today.)

"I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor"

While voting to shut down the government Saturday night, apparently some of the House members weren't just drunk on power. From a Politico Congressional reporter:

I'm not over exaggerating when I say I can smell the booze wafting from members as they walk off the floor.
— Ginger Gibson (@GingerGibson) September 29, 2013

And from a Buzzfeed reporter on Capitol Hill:

I def saw more than 1 member of congress putting a few back on Penn earlier. Ran into 2 in the liquor store.
— KateNocera (@KateNocera) September 29, 2013

And before they even got drunk, they were already acting like drunken pigs:

[T]hey have added a “conscience clause” to the spending bill which takes away preventative care from women, which includes birth control.  

[snip] 

Friday afternoon, Republican John Culberson from TX got huge applause from his colleagues when he compared the GOP’s effort to destroy Obamacare to the heroes of 9/11. Culberson compared the House Repubs to the passengers on United Flight 93 who overtook the terrorists and got control of the plane on 9/11. Yes, Seriously.

This is your government on drugs Tea.

My Coffee With Congressman Doyle

One bright, sunshine day this past weekend, I had a very nice chat with the district's representatives in Congress, Mike Doyle.  It's been a while since we chatted face to face and he's looking fitter and trimmer than I remember.  He said he's lost a couple dozen pounds and given up ice cream and taken to going on 100 mile bike rides.  If you're keeping score, I've been doing none of those things and I'm looking pretty much the same as I have been for a while (that is to say, greying, plumping and balding).

I started off our chat by asking him how well he thought Congress was doing its job.  And that's all I needed to get a full hour of thoughtful analysis.  After chuckling sadly, he started to describe the House's current legislative gridlock.  The current edition.

Early on, he pushed Paul Krugman's article from the NYTimes and one of its main points:

The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy, unable to participate in actual governing.

It's a complicated bind that we're all in generally and that Speaker Boehner is in particularly, but it can all be simplified into this: Because of the "us versus them/if you're not with us you're against us" mentality of the powerful Tea Party caucus of the House, political compromise in that body is impossible.

And because political compromise is impossible, work on any sort of a necessary post-sequestration budget is impossible.

And because any sort work on a post-sequestration budget is impossible, we're going to continue, after October 1, into another phase of the sequester that was not supposed to happen.

According to Doyle, while the Tea Party caucus likes the effects of the sequester (as it limits any growth of the guv'ment without them having do anything for which they can be blamed), those effects will eventually hurt us all.  And that's the bind we're all in because of them.

The inability "to participate in actual governing" extends to some of the most basic functions of congressional work.  For example, Doyle says, when a bill is passed in both houses a conference committee might need to be formed to settle whatever differences there may be between each version.  At present, that's not happening either.  Not without preconditions that the Democrats in Congress would never accept.  All this for a discussion between the two houses.

All because the GOP as a whole has to placate it's Tea Party base.

Which leads to a deeper issue at hand than the "us vs them" mentality mentioned above.  From Krugman:

The sad truth is that the modern G.O.P. is lost in fantasy...

As an illustration of that point, Doyle said that the Republicans were convinced Romney was going to win in 2012. Now that it's obvious that he didn't, they're convinced Karl Rove lied to them about their chances.

[Unconnected to my chat with Doyle, but I gotta think that that last point has something to do with Groundswell.]

Part of the fantasy Krugman describes is also found in Doyle's rhetorical question regarding the House Republicans' reluctance to compromise with their colleagues from the Democratic Party:

• How do you compromise with a party run by a Kenyan-born secret-Muslim who's intent on imposing socialism on America?

The base that's placated by the Tea Party wing of the GOP (and thus the GOP itself) fervently believes teh crazie.  We've seen this before (this is from 2011):

Last August in a CNN/Opinion Research poll, when asked, "Do you think Barack Obama was definitely born in the United States, probably born in the United States, probably born in another country, or definitely born in another country? 44% of the Republicans got it wrong. 27% said he was "probably born in another country" while 14% said he was "definitely born in another country" and 3% had no opinion.

For example.

This is the base that's being placated by the GOP.  Until that ends things will get worse before they get better.  Until the base rejects the conspiracy theory it's been fed and says, "Enough!" things will get worse before they get better.  The House leadership's in a bind because if they don't appease teh crazies, they'll be replaced with a tea partier who will.  The non-crazies among the House GOP (and Doyle told me of many who don't like the TP members - they just can't admit it publicly) feel the same way.  If they disagree they risk a primary challenge from their right.

And until this changes...well, you get the picture.

As for a grade, Doyle gave the folks running the show in the House a solid F.

Is that a surprise?

Springboro Ohio, Creationism and the Tea Party Dogwhistles

We'll start here, at Fox News:

A proposal by an Ohio school district to add creationism to a list of controversial topics deemed appropriate for classroom discussion has ignited a debate over the separation of church and state among parents and a civil rights group.

The Springboro Board of Education took comments on the proposal at a meeting Thursday night attended by parents, students and teachers. Some parents urged the board to abandon the plan, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent a letter to the board, saying the policy would violate the separation of church and state.

"Basically they would be teaching creationism to counteract the teaching of evolution," ACLU spokesman Nick Worner said Friday. "Anytime that you promote or teach the beliefs of one religion over all other religions or beliefs in a public school classroom, that's a problem."

And Fox later gives us some details:

According to the school district website, "evolution/creation," ''pro-life/abortion," contraception/abstinence, legalization of drugs, gun rights, and global warming would be among the topics added to a list of "controversial issues."

Many "areas of study involve issues on which differing positions are held by individuals or groups," and all sides of an issue should be explored "fully and fairly," the proposal says.

Remember the list of topics in that first paragraph. It'll become more important later.  The ACLU of Ohio sent a letter to the Springboro Board of Education outlining the constitutional issues surrounding the proposals - actually there are two policy changes.  One for policy 8800 and the other for policy 2240.  It is the second, Policy 2240, that dabbles in creationism.

My first question was the context of where these "controversial issues" would be discussed.  If it was in a "social studies" or "contemporary issues" class, then what's the problem?  As long as the facts are presented as facts (evolution=science, creationism=religion) then what's the problem?

It's how the board fails to limit the discussion in that way, is the problem.  From the ACLU letter:

This policy appears to explicitly permit the teaching of creationism because "evolution" is on the "controversial issues" list and equal facts for the opposing viewpoint means classroom time spent on the religious theory of intelligent design (or creation science). It has been firmly established that this practice is unconstitutional, in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court of the United States has unequivocally held that so-called "balanced treatment" laws and policies which gave equal class time to evolution and creationism were unconstitutional because they served no secular purpose and instead had a primary purpose of advancing a particular religious viewpoint.

Now here's the text from Policy 2240:

The role of the teacher in the presentation o f assigned issues is vitally important. All sides of the issue should be given to the students in a dispassionate manner. The goal is for the students to be taught to think clearly on all matters of importance, and to make decisions in the light of all the material that has been presented or can be researched on the issues.

Giving sympathetic "science" teachers the room to do the "both sides" of the "teaching the controversy" thing.

But there's another point that Fox left out.  Here's the complete text of the "controversial issues" from the policy:

For purposes of this policy, controversial issues include: religion when not used in a historical or factual context , sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.[Emphasis in original.]

There's a dogwhistle in there, signaling to Springboro's Tea Party element. Did you see it?

It's the UN Agenda 21.  And to the folks at crazie central (aka World Net Daily) it's:

...a 40-chapter U.N. program to introduce fascism worldwide in the guise of environmental regulation.

Confusing, until you take a look at the last time this happened in Springboro:

Kelly Kohls, who was elected in Springboro on a platform of fiscal responsibility two years ago, requested last week the district’s curriculum director look into ways of providing “supplemental” instruction dealing with creationism. Fellow member, Scott Anderson, who was elected with Kohls when the district was struggling financially, supports his colleague’s idea.

And:

Kohls is the head of the Warren County Tea Party. Although she said her desire to teach creationism is not directly related to the emerging political movement, it’s not inconsistent with Tea Party ideals.

“My input on creationism has everything with me being a parent and not a member of the Tea Party,” she said. “We are motivated people who want to change the course of this country. Eliminating God from our public lives I think is a mistake and is why we have gone in the direction of spending beyond our means.”

Of course Kelly Kohls is still on the Board.

Selective IRS Outrage

Unsurprisingly, from my good friends on the Tribune-Review editorial board:

The New York Times played the first-day story of the IRS harassing conservative groups at the bottom of page 10. Had the IRS done the same to liberal groups, The Times would have put out an extra edition.

Actually, this (IRS targeting/harrassing) has happened before - on the other side of the political aisle, of course.

And with nary a peep from the Scaife's Braintrust, of course.

But first some context from Salon.com:

While few are defending the Internal Revenue Service for targeting some 300 conservative groups, there are two critical pieces of context missing from the conventional wisdom on the “scandal.” First, at least from what we know so far, the groups were not targeted in a political vendetta — but rather were executing a makeshift enforcement test (an ugly one, mind you) for IRS employees tasked with separating political groups not allowed to claim tax-exempt status, from bona fide social welfare organizations. Employees are given almost zero official guidance on how to do that, so they went after Tea Party groups because those seemed like they might be political. Keep in mind, the commissioner of the IRS at the time was a Bush appointee.

And that link leads us to this:

In reality, campaign finance experts say, the IRS’ impropriety in targeting Tea Party groups is proof positive of the need for new regulations, as the whole problem started because employees charged with weeding out camouflaged political groups from actual social welfare organizations had no official definition to work off of. After Citizens United and attendant decisions eliminated the restrictions on how much money these groups could spend, their numbers doubled, mainly on the right as conservatives saw an opportunity to push unlimited secret money into elections. Some of these groups were blatantly political, even though they told the IRS they’d stay out of politics.

As Ezra Klein explains, with no formal test on what makes a political group, IRS employees went where the action was and focused on Tea Party groups. That approach was wrong and discriminatory, but the only way to fix it will be with better regulations and clearer demarcations of what makes a group political.

So the current situation was triggered by Citizen's United (and gee, what a great decision that's turned out to be, huh??) but the question arises: Has the IRS ever targeted any left leaning organization for similar harassment?  The Braintrust seems to think that it hasn't and that even if it had, the NYTimes would have "put out a new edition" to let everyone know.

 From Salon:

The well-known church, All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena, became a bit of a cause célèbre on the left after the IRS threatened to revoke the church’s tax-exempt status over an anti-Iraq War sermon the Sunday before the 2004 election. “Jesus [would say], ‘Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine,’” rector George Regas said from the dais.

The church, which said progressive activism was in its “DNA,” hired a powerful Washington lawyer and enlisted the help of Schiff, who met with the commissioner of the IRS twice and called for a Government Accountability Office investigation, saying the IRS audit violated the First Amendment and was unduly targeting a political opponent of the Bush administration. “My client is very concerned that the close coordination undertaken by the IRS allowed partisan political concerns to direct the course of the All Saints examination,” church attorney Marcus Owens, who is widely considered one of the country’s leading experts on this area of the law, said at the time. In 2007, the IRS closed the case, decreeing that the church violated rules preventing political intervention, but it did not revoke its nonprofit status.

And while All Saints came under the gun, conservative churches across the country were helping to mobilize voters for Bush with little oversight. In 2006, citing the precedent of All Saints, “a group of religious leaders accused the Internal Revenue Service yesterday of playing politics by ignoring its complaint that two large churches in Ohio are engaging in what it says are political activities, in violation of the tax code,” the New York Times reported at the time. The churches essentially campaigned for a Republican gubernatorial candidate, they alleged, and even flew him on one of their planes.

Where was the outrage from Scaife's Braintrust then?

Go to triblive.com and search for "All Saints Episcopal Church Pasadena" and you'll find two (2) articles. One from the AP discussing the National Cathedral performing "same sex weddings" and the other a straight forward news piece by David Brown that starts with this:

As nonprofit groups have increased their political activity, the Internal Revenue Service has stepped up efforts cautioning tax-exempt organizations on how to avoid trouble.

Which, shred of it's nasty political overtones, is exactly how the IRS got into trouble with those Tea Party groups in the first place.

All with no braintrust editorials decrying the scandal of it all.

Surprising, isn't it?