Dear Senator Ron Johnson:

I read in the Oshkosh Northwestern (our hometown newspaper) today that, as part of your official duties as a U.S. Senator, you are producing videos of people who have been harmed by government intrusion or red tape. The paper went on to describe the subject of your first video, the sad story of Steve Lathrop, “a man who bought an old dump in a flood plain and converted it into a lake to prevent future flooding”…

The nearly three-minute video says the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers subsequently threatened Lathrop with fines and jail time unless he converted the land back because the Army Corps had designated the area as wetlands. The video said the Corps of Engineers also referred Lathrop to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for prosecution, but the EPA declined to charge him. Lathrop instead planned to follow EPA guidelines to create new wetlands on the adjacent farm, which required a permit. The permit still has not arrived from the Corps of Engineers even though Lathrop applied for it 14 years ago, the video said.
…
Johnson is inviting people who watch the first video to click on a link and share other stories that could provide the basis for future installments.

Waiting for a permit for 14 years! What an injustice! How intrusive!!

Well, if you really want to expose intrusive government, there’s no need to wait for people to click on your link. There are 305 stories just begging to be publicized over at The Innocence Project. These are stories not of people who have been waiting for a permit (to do something they apparently don’t want to do anyway), but rather of people who have been convicted by the government of crimes they did not commit, and as a result have rotted away in prison for, in some cases, over thirty years. I suggest you direct your keen eye for intrusive government at them; here are a few of the most egregious cases to get you started:

Cross-posted at blogherenow.net

Clements was the latest victim of increasingly active violent right-wing extremists. While American politicians and the U.S. public continue to focus on the threat from jihadist extremists, there seems to be too little awareness that this domestic form of political violence is a growing problem at home.

From 2002 to 2007, only nine right-wing extremists were indicted for their roles in politically motivated murders and other types of ideologically motivated violent assaults. But between 2008 and 2012, the number mushroomed to 53, according to data collected by the New America Foundation. (Click on chart on the left for the data.)

Fifteen right-wing extremists were indicted in 2012 — including six who were involved in a militia in Georgia that accumulated weapons, plotted attacks on the government and murdered a young U.S. Army soldier and his 17-year-old girlfriend, who they suspected were planning to rat out the group to authorities. Seven claimed membership in the anti-government Sovereign Citizens movement and allegedly murdered two policemen in Louisiana. And two had gone on a murderous rampage the previous year, killing four people before they were arrested in California, where they told police they were on their “way to Sacramento to kill more Jews.”

More: Opinion: Growing Threat of Extreme Right-Wing Violence

Charles Krauthammer gives President Obama credit for a “stunning accomplishment,” saying that Obama has ruthlessly shattered the Republican Party, breaking their will and causing an internal civil war while vacationing in luxury and playing golf every day: Krauthammer to Hannity: Obama Has Successfully Created ‘An Internal Civil War’ Within the GOP.

Also, Obama’s overplaying his hand, and will go down in history as a failed president with a radical ideology. And he needs to give in to the Republicans now or he’ll be blamed for the fiscal cliff.

Basically, Krauthammer’s throwing everything he has against the wall in this one, hoping something will stick. I’m no Beltway insider like the K-man, but it seems to me the Republican Party has done a pretty damned good job of shattering itself.

At xoJane.com: How a Gun-Loving West Texas Girl Learned to Fear Assault Weapons.

In college, I spent several years with an abusive boyfriend.

He was smart, though, so it was a quiet kind of abuse — very few marks. Very few public displays of anger. Hard worker, upright citizen. A bit cold, but not the kind of man you’d “expect” to knock his partner around.

Nine months after I left him, he called me crying at 10 in the morning, drunk. He was hurting. Life was hard.

And I still only wanted good things for him, so I went over.

For the next hour, he held me hostage with a Glock pistol, which is a semi-automatic handgun. This has also been the gun of choice for Jeffrey Weise, James Holmes, Cho Seung-Hui, Jared Lee Loughner, and most recently, Adam Lanza.

In my case, it was a gift from my boyfriend’s father. For “home defense.” 

It is the calmest I can ever remember being.

As the “fiscal cliff” looms unthreateningly, media hype notwithstanding, I’ve been wondering if liberals like me have ever suggested broad government spending cuts. I’m sure they have, somewhere, but you rarely see any in the mainstream media doing so, and a quick google search shows only one prominent blog post that even comes close to qualifying: Derek Thompson’s “The Liberal Case For Cutting Domestic Spending”, on Ezra Klein’s blog-

You don’t see many liberal economists writing about the best places to cut domestic spending in the next few years. But maybe they should be — if only for the selfish reason that it might clear the way for their spending ideas. When I asked Adam Hersh, an economist from the Center for American Progress, to identify some non-security discretionary items he could part with in exchange for infrastructure money, he acknowledged that the pickings might be slim. But there are still pickings.

“You could shift spending from activities with low stimulating multipliers to higher job multipliers — like shifting timber subsidies toward infrastructure and R&D,” Hersh said. Cut farm subsidies, eliminate duplicate and wasteful domestic programs, and throw in the president’s promise to freeze non-security discretionary spending and federal wages, and you’ve got tens of billions of dollars that could offset spending projects under the conservative House’s cut-go rules. Who knows if this would lure Republicans across the aisle. But what’s the harm in identifying cuts that would make important initiatives more palatable to moderates?

I have nothing against such neutral ways of shifting spending from less to more productive programs, but it seems to me that liberals should be able to identify a lot of government spending that could be cut outright. Here are just a few ideas (including ones involving the military), each of which I’m willing to be convinced would not work or should not be done-

1) Cut military programs (e.g., big-ticket weapons systems that the Pentagon has said it does not need or want). The concern about displaced military-industrial workers could be eased by providing modest tax credits for converting military factories to more productive uses. And, of course, close unnecessary bases overseas, and try to avoid being drawn into endless conflicts.

2) End the war on drugs (a no-brainer, dude). This would also cut the prison-industrial complex. Shift resources to less expensive medical treatment options for drug-abusing addicts.

3) Cut subsidies to Big Oil, Big Agriculture, and any other industry that is obviously self-sufficient.

4) Cut Homeland Security. I’m all for a strong Intelligence community, but does anyone really believe that, since 9/11, there has been no serious waste and duplication of effort in this area?

5) Drastically simplify the tax code. Doing so should reduce the size of the IRS, and free up private resources for more productive uses than tax-minimization, thereby increasing revenues. This is an issue liberals should champion just as loudly as conservatives (if not more so, since the current tax system has been constructed by special interests with the money to lobby Congress and give big donations to candidates).

6) Control medical costs directly. Anyone who has ever looked at a medical bill knows that the price of medical goods and services is ridiculously high. The Affordable Care Act already limits the profits that medical insurance companies can make. Next, pass a law to limit the profits of medical equipment suppliers, drug companies, and perhaps hospitals. (I’m leaving medical personnel off this list, but only because we presently need to encourage more people to enter those professions). This would significantly reduce Medicare and Medicaid expenses, and hence spending. (I realize that profits have to be high enough to encourage private R&D, but particularly over the next thirty or forty years of baby-boom retirement, these sectors should be highly profitable even under reasonable controls).

7) Increase the age of Medicare eligibility by a year or two. I know this is not a respectable suggestion in some liberal circles, but it seems to me a reasonable response to the projected Medicare deficit and significantly increasing life-spans. If The Affordable Care Act is properly implemented, most seniors could probably afford to purchase private medical insurance for at least a couple of years, and those who couldn’t should be eligible for subsidies.

8) Election reform. Limit election seasons to a month or so, by law, and limit candidates’ election fund-raising to a couple of months prior to the (shortened) election season. This might make politicians more productive, and hence save the tax-payer a little money. Also, to decrease the cost of elections and increase access, develop secure ways of voting via the internet (if and only if doing so is technically feasible).

These are just a few ideas off the top of my head, and there are probably problems with each of them that I haven’t recognized (not the least of which being the lack of political will to see them realized). But surely there are hundreds of other sensible cuts liberals could propose, and thereby help to counter the conservative charge that liberals just want Big Government. Suggestions, anyone?

(Cross-posted at blogherenow.)

Tuesday I had to go over to Newark to visit a client to provide training for the new CMS (content management system) we installed for their website. The visit was uneventful. I wrapped things up and left, then called for a taxi and went outside to wait for it. The neighborhood isn’t a terribly rough one (at least not by East Coast standards), but it’s adjacent to a somewhat ghetto-ish one.

So I was sitting on one of those big tree planters futzing around with the camera on my new iPod and must’ve missed my cell phone slipping out of the side pocket of my purse. I got home, settled back down in front of my computer, and got back to work, never realizing that my phone was missing.

A couple of hours later my land line rang. I didn’t even look at the Caller ID. The man on the other end said he had no idea who he was calling, but he’d found a cell phone over by [redacted] and since my number was in it he thought I might be able to tell him who it belonged to because he’d like to return it.

I told him that I most certainly did know who it belonged to—me!—then I told him how I thought I’d lost it. I thanked him for his honesty and told him that it was always heartening to to be reminded how many good people there still are in the world. That did it—all of a sudden he got all choked up, told me he was “just trying to please the Lord”, and then began telling me his story.

Continue reading…

This is an entertaining read for those of us who already feel the same way, and probably pearls before swine to those who really need to absorb this information. I assume most of you will be highly entertained.

Letter to a Future Republican Strategist Regarding White People

To whom it may concern regarding the United States federal elections of 2014, 2016 and beyond:

Allow me to introduce myself to you, the existing (or aspiring!) strategist for the Republican Party. My name is Eric Arnold Garland and I am a White Man. Boy, am I ever - you need sunglasses just to look at my photo!

If I read the news correctly, I fit a profile that is of extreme importance to the GOP, as I embody the archetype that fits your narrative of Real Americans. Just how much should my profile interest you? Are you sitting down?

•My family lineage goes back to the MAYFLOWER, BOAT ONE!!! (Garland family of New England-> John Adams -> Howard Alden -> Plymouth colony ->KINGS OF MUTHAF***IN’ ENGLAND)

•I am a heterosexual, married to the super Caucasian mother of my two beautiful children who are, inexplicably, EVEN WHITER THAN I AM.

[further impressive credentials are listed, then he gives the shocking news that he didn’t vote for Mitt Romney…]

May I explain why not, purely for your education, such that you might be interested in winning an election on the national level at some point in the future? It bears pointing out that I should be your Low Hanging Fruit, the easy vote to get as opposed to, say, African-Americans, Latinos, or Asians – and you’re not even speaking well to me. The reasons why ought to concern you deeply.

[…]

Here are the areas of concern he shares:

Science

Climate

Healthcare

War

Deficits and debt

Gay marriage

Then he needs to add one more.

Uh oh, wait, I can already hear you through the web browser, dismissing all of my above points because THAT GUY WAS NEVER GONNA BE A REPUBLICAN ANYHOW, CUZ HE’S A LIBRUL WHO HATES AMERICA AND…

All right, let’s do one last point:

Meanness-

Go read the whole thing. Apparently the throngs attracted to this piece of brilliance have crashed his server before, so if you can’t get in, try again later.

I found another essay on his site that demonstrates his grasp of the subject. From diversity to inclusion: the model of a great conference. But if his server crashes, you won’t be able to get to that one either.

I have to admit I’m making a deliberate effort to ignore the political world today, at least more than usual. I made up my mind a long time ago to vote for Barack Obama, and against anyone the Republican Party put up. I don’t agree with everything Obama has done, but overall he’s achieved quite a bit in his first term, despite ferocious and often deranged opposition from Republicans, and deserves a second term as much as any President I’ve ever seen.

The GOP is a serious danger to the future of this country The Republican Party … well, if you’ve been reading the site for the past couple of years you know what I think about them. They’re lost in cloud cuckoo land in so many ways and on so many levels, there’s just no doubt that they represent a serious danger to the future prosperity of this country — not just for their magical thinking on economics, but in their denial of many areas of modern science (based on either religious fanaticism or cynical political calculation for personal profit), their continuing, relentless attempts to roll back progress on women’s reproductive rights, and the shockingly prevalent racism and xenophobia that have bubbled up to the surface in a highly disturbing way since the election of our first black President.

At this point, it’s not even really about Mitt Romney, although he’s an especially cynical example of the Republican brand. Nobody the GOP could prop up and nominate would ever convince me to vote for a Republican in the foreseeable future, because of what the party as a whole represents: reactionary paranoia, manifesting as authoritarian rule whenever they gain power.

In my life, I’ve voted twice for Republican presidents, and Democrats every other time — and the second time I voted for a Republican (John McCain) it was with grave misgivings.

I’ll have no misgivings at all about casting my vote for Barack Obama.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s taken the lead on criticizing the Obama Administration’s disaster response following Hurricane Sandy. He’s actually compared the disaster response from Sandy to the response by the Bush Administration to Hurricane Katrina and found the Bush Administration response to be better.

It’s time for a fact check.

That’s the same Rudy Giuliani who agreed with Bloomberg to hold the NYC marathon. “Mayor Bloomberg made the right decision to go forward with the marathon” - Rudy Giuliani on Fox News.

That’s the same response that led to so many on Staten Island raising holy hell, the New York Post to lambaste Bloomberg, and for Bloomberg to reverse course less than 48 hours before the marathon and cancelled it. Of course, even after the marathon was cancelled, not all of the equipment, including generators, was made available for disaster response. Some of it was still sitting in place in Central Park and elsewhere, even as Mayor Bloomberg now warns those without power that the cold could end up being a killer.

Rudy, the city’s response to the disaster is decidedly mixed.

Bloomberg could very well have his Mayor Nagin memorial motor pool moment courtesy of his inane decision to run the marathon and subsequent cancellation with less than 48 hours notice all while equipment and material from the marathon wasn’t brought to bear to help relieve suffering of those in need.

However, the Sanitation Department has been pulling its weight and clearing debris throughout the City. The NYPD and FDNY have been doing tremendous work in keeping the city safe - crime is actually down 30% despite scattered reports of looting.

The MTA has done a phenomenal job in getting service restarted, despite catastrophic and unprecedented damage to the subway system.

Bloomberg’s performance leaves much to be desired. Staten Island and the outer boroughs - Rockaways, Southern Brooklyn and Queens, are a mess and it will take months and years to bring those areas back to normal (if ever - and one can see how damage from major storms rewrote the geography and demographics of places like Homestead FL and towns up and down the Gulf Coast).

Disaster response means getting all the various parts to speak to each other and work together with a common goal. That’s working in spots. But when Con Ed can’t get to its utilities to restring lines for power because of debris but the Sanitation Department can’t get into areas because of energized downed power lines, you begin to understand the conundrum of restoring power in a natural disaster.

Still, despite this, the MTA got the Staten Island railway up and running and buses are again moving through the borough. That’s a whole lot better than it was, but the job’s nowhere near done or complete.

Even with the heroic efforts of the NYPD, FDNY, and Sanitation Departments, there’s not enough of a local, state and federal presence in those areas. It’s coming, but not fast enough, and the damage is hard to comprehend.

Trying to compare Katrina to Sandy is apples to oranges. Population densities are a completely different tale. While Katrina’s damage was on a scale never before seen in the US, the Gulf Coast has a population density of 178 people per square mile. New Jersey’s got 1,189 inhabitants per square mile. New York City? 26,403 people per square mile. By comparison, the current population density of New Orleans is a fraction of that with 1,965 per square mile. It needs a completely different scale of response.

Still, it’s kinda tough to hear GOPers complain about the pace of FEMA assistance when they have been busy complaining and calling for FEMA to be disbanded/privatized, etc. Or, disaster response should be devolved to the state level, so that when a disaster strikes, the very government that’s supposed to help can’t because their resources were wiped out by the disaster they’re supposed to address. The same people who would seek to eliminate FEMA are the same ones complaining they aren’t there fast enough and aren’t taking steps to make sure it’s funded in a way that it could respond with sufficient numbers to assist those in need.

FEMA arrived on Staten Island within 4 days of the storm. Is that fast enough? Hardly. Could they have gotten there faster? Possibly, until you realize that if they pre-positioned in the hardest hit areas, they would have suffered the same fate as so many of the very residents they’re supposed to try and assist. That means watching entire shorelines vanish. Homes moved off their foundations. Entire neighborhoods impassible with debris and damage and downed lines.

Blaming FEMA is the easy way out. And one doesn’t have to see a FEMA agent on the ground to be able to get FEMA assistance either. In most cases, getting a phone call in to the agency is sufficient to get the response system started - 1-800-621-FEMA. Even the response trucks and door-to-door response is geared to getting people to call in to FEMA to deal with their disaster needs.

It’s not perfect, and seeing people with their FEMA uniforms/jackets is a comforting thought to those who have seen everything turned upside down, and that’s where having more boots on the ground can help.

There are many reasons I’m voting Democrat this election but prime among them is that Mitt Romney has no core, no soul, no integrity. There are many words that you would never apply to him after his several years of unsuccessful campaigning, but chief among them are the words “courageous,” “consistent,” “principled,” “honest,” and least of all “caring.”

Instead you can see him lie every day, blandly smiling and glad-handing the crowds as he puts another baldfaced whopper across. You have to wonder if he’s chuckling inside and thinking, “I wonder how many of these hapless rubes bought that one.”

There’s nothing worse than frat boy weasels who lie to your face knowing that they are lying, knowing full well that you see through their lie. It doesn’t matter if they are trying to sell a junker off a used car lot or running for president, most people can smell them coming — but others seem defenseless against their toothsome grins. Anytime that Mitt has seemed to say something solid on the campaign trail, the next day he sends his staff out to walk it back, since he seems not to have the spine required to retract it in person, or to stand for something specific himself.

Maybe you’ve been willing to accept the lies because Romney’s a “member of the GOP team,” or because you hate our current President — but politics is not a sport, and you need to be bigger than just a rooter for your team. The US can’t afford another second generation elitist sliming their way into office, not here, not now, as the economy is just recovering from the worst recession since the great depression. We don’t need more of the same deregulation, the same laissez faire, “who cares about all those bad loans” attitudes at the helm. We certainly don’t need a president who has so little faith in our country that he off-shores most of his money made after years of off-shoring our jobs and dumping insolvent and Bain debt-saddled companies into bankruptcy.

Almost worse than Romney are the people who would come into power with himWe don’t need a president who thinks 47 percent of us don’t matter, because the president is elected to serve everyone, not just the people who financed their campaign or who voted for them.

Almost worse than Romney are the people who would come into power with him, as the reactionary fundamentalist wing of the party is in full control of the GOP right now. With Mitt, we would get people from the clash of civilizations crowd (like John Bolton), who won’t rest until they get us into another world economy-wrecking war. Anti-science blustering blowhards for the oil companies and religious right, like Joe Barton and Todd Akin, are clinging tightly to his coat tails, and we sure don’t need “strict Bible constructionists” on the Supreme Court either.

We really can’t afford another anti-science administration — the world is changing much too fast and our children’s futures are entirely dependent our ability to adapt and foster new technologies. Mitt would bring a whole crowd of reactionary Luddites with him.

I can’t vote for Mitt as well because of his stance on gay marriage, I can’t vote for him because of his stance against women’s rights, I can’t vote for him because of all the misogynist cavemen that he would bring with him were he to win. And I can’t vote for him because there’s a chance that the Senate could flip this year, and I think we need checks and balances. The GOP in full control of all branches of government is the prime ingredient in a recipe for future disasters.

Most of all, I can’t vote for Mitt because there’s nothing behind the bluster and puff: he’s just a spoiled pile of meringue whipped together from bile and the last century’s GOP bumper stickers.