Wednesday

The paper started something called "Story Chat" -- adding the option of reader comments to every story in the online edition.

After reading these comments over the past few months, let me just say again that David Neiwert's Orcinus is Really Important.

* * * * *

I've gotten a bit distracted from it, but I'm working my way through David Kuo's Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. The latter half of the book contains the juicy insider stuff about the White House's Faith-Based Initiative and the way it was cynically, disingenuously used as nothing more than a facade for blatant, partisan political gain. But the first half is also fascinating reading.

The early chapters of Tempting Faith form an earnest, honest, candidly confessional spiritual memoir. It reminds me of Blinded by the Right -- Kuo is very much like a straight, evangelical David Brock. And he really is an evangelical -- that's why the book is structured this way. He knew the book would be strip-mined for the juicy bits, the damning anecdotes that pull back the curtain on the Mayberry Machiavellis, but he wanted anyone looking for such juicy bits to first have to read his personal testimony. It's a bit like the Gospel Mission method in which you don't get dinner until after the sermon.

The endearing and admirable quality that comes through in Tempting Faith is the way Kuo's passion and idealism remain intact. He has been disillusioned, but he is still hopeful, still idealistic. And while he recognizes that his own zeal has sometimes been misplaced and misappropriated, he still believes such zeal is necessary. Good for him.

* * * * *

Mike Leavitt sounds pretty far 'round the bend:

"The idea of the government negotiating drug prices really isn't about the government negotiating drug prices," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. ...

Obviously not.

"... It's a surrogate for a much larger issue, which is really government-run health care."

The secretary is arguing against market forces -- supply and demand, economies of scale, etc. -- arguing that such things are really just a disguise for some kind of socialist/Canadian scheme. We mustn't use our purchasing power to negotiate the best possible price, he is saying. That's just what They would expect us to do.

To be charitable, Leavitt here is having to defend the indefensible, so he's bound to sound like a goofball. There's no good reason, no defense, for the GOP's Medicare scheme's requirement that taxpayer dollars must go to the highest bidder. That's just corporate welfare.

I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out, somewhere in the fine print of this bill, that not only does it prohibit any negotiation for lower drug prices, but it also tosses in a 15-percent gratuity with every payment.

* * * * *

"The Pooch Is Already Screwed," Jim Macdonald writes over at Making Light. And I'm afraid he's right.

The best we can hope for in Iraq is some kind of Least Bad Alternative. But even that is likely going to be really, really bad. All the kings horses and all James Baker's men aren't going to be able to uncrack this egg.

Throughout the campaign, President Bush and his apologists tried to distract from their lethal bungling by saying that his critics didn't have a plan either. An often-repeated response to this was to point out that Bush was the guy who drove the car off the cliff, so it wasn't fair now to ask his critics to take the wheel and miraculously prevent the crash.

That analogy seemed apt then, and even more so now. Of course, even with the new majority in Congress, Bush is still behind the wheel.

* * * * *

The bottom line regarding the Faith-Based Initiative is this: People who claimed to want to support charitable institutions were simultaneously working, far harder, to sabotage the charitable sector by eliminating the estate tax. The estate tax accounted for about $12 billion a year in charitable contributions.

If someone tells you that: A) They want government to support and encourage the work of nonprofit agencies, and B) They want to eliminate the estate tax, then they are either lying to you or they are too stupid to recognize that $12 billion > $12 million.

Either way, such a person doesn't deserve your respect or attention.

* * * * *

Jack Balkin says what I tried to say about Ted Haggard, but he says it better.

* * * * *

Over on The Huffington Post, Bob Cesca has become the Starbucks of "Shut the F*** Up."

The whole post is a hoot, but this point touches on a particular pet peeve of mine:

10) The devilish wordsmiths who think it's strategic and clever to refer to the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Party" need to stop it. Shut the f*** up. The official name of the party is the Democratic Party, with the "ic" at the end. Yeah, I know. Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz invented the idea of saying "Democrat Party" or "the Democrat leadership" or "the Democrat voters" in order to emphasize the "rat" syllable, leaving a rat-like subliminal hint in the minds of listeners. President Bush, in his so-called "conciliatory" [Nov. 8] press conference, used this incorrect pronunciation several times.

Considering how popular this childish verbal tic has become among Republican politicians and pundits, I'm guessing that Luntz must've had some polling data to suggest it was somehow an effective "subliminable" way of influencing opinion, and that it must sound to some people as something other than what it sounds like to me: People who aren't smart enough to pronounce a four-syllable word properly. This kind of seriously unserious tactic is part of why I'm unwilling to trust these people with serious matters. (That and, you know, Iraq, Katrina, the deficit, etc.)

* * * * *

Speaking of that new majority in Congress, here's my suggested addition to their agenda: Pass Part II of the bankruptcy reform legislation they passed last year.

Part I, you'll recall, cracked down on irresponsible borrowers (you know, those lazy moral midgets who do things like get laid off or seek medical care). So now it's time for Part II, cracking down on irresponsible lenders.

For starters, I'm talking about federal caps on credit card interest rates and fees. Tougher regulation of the sleazeball rent-to-own industry -- including strict limits on total payments. Limits on the cumulative interest charges and late fees charged by so-called payday lenders. Maybe some nice full-disclosure regulations for those lenders as well, requiring prominently placed, day-glo signage with lettering no smaller than six inches -- something along those lines.

This would be both good policy and good politics. (Go ahead, call it "pro-family" -- that's what it is.) And it would provide an opportunity for the 18 Democratic Senators who voted for the atrocious Part I bill to at least partially atone for their sins.

(Those senators are listed here. The Hall of Shame for the House, including the 73 Democratic members who supported the bankruptcy bill, is here.)

Comments

[jw]

Clean slate. Wow.

I heard someone on the radio today make a pretty good case for setting up some clear standards for the Iraqis and help them for one more year to achieve them. Not the stand up/stand down slogans of the Bush administration, but tangible goals along the line of incentives to physically separate the Sunnis from the Shias, and establishing oil revenue sharing agreements between the groups. These standards would have to be communicated to the current government immediately and a determination made as to whether there is buy-in by the government. Along with these goals, would be the clear commitment that the US will withdraw, so the current Iraqi govenment can't rely on our presence forever. If the response was negative, as in, get out now, we think we can win this war, then that's what we should do. Otherwise, give them a chance to succeed.

This sounded eminently reasonable. It would be good to do our best to clean up the mess our country is responsible for. But I can't put eminently reasonable next to "Bush administration" without thinking the sentence would explode.

[janet]

To me, "the Democrat Party" has distinct echos of "the Jew banker." Probably just a coincidence.

[Rasselas]

Sometimes I get tired of bloggers telling other people to "shut the fuck up," "leave now," "just shut up and pay attention," "just shut up," etc., etc. It reminds me of something.

[the opoponax]

i think another reason they say Democrat Party insteady of Democratic Party is because the word "Democratic" is a mental trigger word, along with "Freedom", "Rights", "Liberty", "Equality", etc.

The Republican party doesn't want Americans (especially politially apathetic types who would be more likely to fall for this sort of thing) to associate the Democrats with "Democracy". Especially because "Republic" isn't nearly as much of a trigger word as any of the above. you can say Republican without thinking about any essential ideal quality of good government. when you say "Democratic", though, you get that nice trigger word. the term "Republic" doesn't really mean much for people who aren't well educated about political science.

Add all that to the fact that the Republicans want credit for fostering "Democracy" and bringing it to other countries, and it's easy to see why they've decided to say "Democrat Party" instead of "Democractic Party".

[Matt McIrvin]

One Republican who uses "Democrat Party" has explained it to me along the lines of the opoponax's comment: he doesn't want to buy into the idea that the Democratic party is the only democratic party. But I think the main reason it's been adopted by the Republican noise machine is simply that it annoys Democrats; it's a little slap in the face that you can deliver casually. Acting too offended by it, especially if the expression of offense seems whiny and petty, may play into the hands of the people who use it (see also Josh Marshall's many posts on the "bitch-slap theory").

The interesting thing to me, actually, is that "republican" is no longer an American feel-good trigger word in the general sense, because I get the strong impression that at one time it was. Maybe it's just because, in the modern world, republicanism overwhelmingly won to an even greater extent than democracy: there are very few absolute monarchies left, and the majority of monarchies that do exist are constitutional monarchies run by parliamentary governments, effectively republics in all but ceremonial senses. Of course, in some of those monarchies people do debate abolishing those monarchic elements, and "republican" with a small R has more significance.

[Edward Liu]

I think Leavitt had the gall to even use the phrase "magic of the market" in his explanation of how using government buying power to negotiate bulk discounts was Evil.

Whenever I hear that phrase, I want to quote Inigo Montoya to them: "You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." "Constitutional literalists" is another one.

[grenadine]

I noticed the use of "Democrat Party" starting a few weeks ago, and the first few times I assumed it was some sort of mistake on the part of the media outlet that transcribed the quotes. Then I realized it was deliberate. But it does make the speaker sound sort of...well, stupid. I expect this little mismoniker will fade out when the Repub Party (Get it? Emphasis on the "pub" since they're all a bunch of drunk layabouts?) sees that it makes them look like they find long words too hard to say.

[wintermute]

grenadine: I was thinking about using the label "Publican Party", which would probably have negative connotations for many fundamentalist Protestants.

[daniel]

What about "Republicanists", going along with Andrew Sullivan's "Christianists"?

[cjmr]

Personally, I like 'Republicants'...

[cminus]

How about the "Old Party," since they're not terribly Grand lately?

[Jesurgislac]

I like "Repub" or "Repubs". Every time a Repub uses "Democrat" they get one "Repub" back at them.

[Linkmeister]

The first time I remember hearing "Democrat" used in that way was during the 1996 Presidential election when Bob Dole called WW2, Korea and Vietnam "Democrat wars," as though they'd been fought by only one-half of the American political class.

I find it sadly amusing that Leavitt is arguing against the market just as its patron saint Milton Friedman lay dying. I've heard more encomiums about the man today than I wanted to, including such items as Ronald Reagan admiring his work. I suspect that if Reagan even knew of Friedman's work it was in sound-bite or paragraph form, fed to him by Arthur Laffer and David Stockman.

[Jeff]

I really wish that Lamont had campaigned harder on the Bancruptcy Bill (hinting, at least, at the Bancruptcy of those who allowed it to pass, LIEberman). It was such a ghastly bill, so indefensible, it should have stood as the cornerstone of his campaign.

"I've heard that my campaign is a referendum on the Iraq war. That's important, but it's just as important that the Fat-Cat bankers not be allowed to crush ordinary folks, take their home, their property, their lives, when they have the misfortune to get ill!"

Don't even need any religious language (cf The Righteous).

[Jen R]

janet: I agree about "Democrat party" sounding like "Jew banker". It also reminds me of constructions like "woman driver". I don't know what it is about using a noun as an adjective that makes it an expression of contempt, but that does seem to often be the intent.

[the opoponax]

is it wrong of me to be f5ing in hope of a Left Behind Friday post?

[Raka]

"Look out for womanic drivers"?

[wintermute]

> is it wrong of me to be f5ing in hope of a Left Behind Friday post?

If it is, then I don't want to be right!

[cjmr]

Fred didn't get the last two LBs up until after 3pm, so I'm willing to wait semi-patiently.

[Raka]

More seriously, using a noun as an adjective (at least when the noun in question is a person or collection of persons) is certainly an expression of contempt. It's a construction that comes across as a compound, implying definition rather than description. "Look at that dampened banker!" directs your attention to a banker, specifically one who happens to be wet. The modifier is important, but not essential to the concept being communicated. "Grampa got runned over by a woman driver", on the other hand, uses "woman driver" as a non-divisible term. The phrase is saying a lot more than "Grampa got runned over by a driver, who happened to have two X chromosones." "Woman driver" defines a class, a special set of drivers that are inherently functionally different at driving simply by being "woman drivers". It's reductionist and insulting-- if you are a member of group "Jew", then you MUST do your banking in a certain predictable way.

[jurassicpork]

Yeah, I of the cloud of witnesses testify that these wingnuts with their dog whistle phrases ought to just shut the fuck up and stop calling them the "Democrat Party", as if democracy is for Republicans only.

Btw, surfed on in from technorati and found myself linked to a blog that gets more traffic and a shitload more comments than mine that I'd never heard of before. I never see this place linked elsewhere, which makes the traffic you get kind of mysterious and astounding.

Arriving here, for a liberal, is kind of like a black man accidentally wandering into what looks like a Klan meeting. I see Tim LaHaye's book on the sidebar, I read generous quotes from it and I think, "Oh shit. How did I get this guy's attention?"

I was glad to see that my trepidations aren't founded and that I'm firmly in blue territory. Great place and I'll be returning the favor and blogrolling you, as well.

[Sky-Ho]

Corporate welfare or corporate socialism. Same thing, really.

If corporations are so bad they need to be propped up with government hand-outs, wouldn't Ayn Rand say, let them die?