Month: August 2012

Your tumblr of the day, Dog-shaming:

Obligatory beagle after the jump:

A reader writes:

I remain mistrustful of the “private charity” canard. A government’s sole purpose in providing for the needful is to support its citizens in times of need and to provide them a route back to health and productivity. Private charities exist primarily with alternative goals. Religious charities exist to evangelize, proselytize, convince and, at times, coerce. Alexander Hamilton once wrote, “Control of a man’s subsistence is control of his will,” and private charities have the power to become regional monopolies that control the subsistence, and the will, of thousands. We can argue all we want about whether or not government has the same power, but the US remains a nominal democracy, and its will is supposed to be ours, not those of the church leadership and its contingent reading of God’s.

Another writes:

You mention the Salvation Army as an example of a charity that does great work, but you are either unaware or neglecting to mention that they also discriminate against LGBT. Most recently they fired a lesbian worker. The idea that private charities can and should be the primary source of relief for the poor is as old as America. All you need to do it look at the lives of the poor prior to this century to see how that worked out.

I obviously disagree with the Salvation Army’s anti-gay policies. But they do amazing work for the poor and needy and one of the reasons they are so successful is their religious zeal. For me, they have an absolute religious freedom to promote certain views, however repugnant to me. And the harm is vastly outweighed by the good. Another:

If my father were alive today, he would be in his 90s.  He grew up financially well off in the Depression but his disinheritance by his father and service in WWII opened his eyes to the suffering of most of the world.  He did not contribute to charitable religious organizations, preferring to support governmental or secular groups.  Here’s why: I vividly remember driving by the Salvation Army store one day, and my father saying he wouldn’t give them a cent.  When I asked why, he said, “they make those poor bastards say a prayer before they’ll give them a hot meal.” He believed, rightly or not I cannot say, that religious charities served the poor only to recruit them to their faith.  The thought of a man bending his knee to a god he didn’t believe in, in exchange for a hot meal, made my father sick.  Government doesn’t make you say a prayer before they give you a hot meal.  This has always been a very powerful argument, to me, for supporting public social programs over private charity.

Another:

You and others have casually referred to Romney’s tithing as the equivalent to giving to charity but I think we need to be cautious about this.  How much of the millions he contributes would go to what we picture as charitable causes, like feeding and clothing the poor, medical care, and how much goes to church administration?  Sending missionaries out to convert more people to Mormonism?  Sending operatives out to fiercely oppose marriage equality?

Another:

Paul Ryan’s meager 2.5% giving rate certainly conflicts with his notion that private charity should replace the welfare state.  It is even more important, however, to look at the recipients of his charity.  According to the article you linked, Mr. Ryan gives money to organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, Junior Achievement (an organization that teaches youth about entrepreneurship and free markets), and Women and Children’s Horizons (an organization supporting victims of sexual and domestic abuse).  Only the last of the three organizations is really attempting to fill a traditional state role or supplement the social safety net.

Small government advocates who believe that private charity would step in if the size of the state were reduced need to look at the recipients of private charity as well as the amount of Americans’ generosity.

I don’t believe private charity can or should replace the safety net. But it’s a vital and very American complement we should be glad for. Another:

Good points, but a couple of things:

1. Private charities have every right to discriminate

2. President Obama may have given 14.2% in 2010, but he hasn’t always had such a charitable history, certainly not before he decided to run for President. I’m a supporter, but this is worth bringing up if you’re making the point on Ryan:

2005: $77,315 to charity out of income of $1.66 million (4.6 percent)
2004: $2,500 out of $207,647 (1.2 percent)
2003: $3,400 out of $238,327 (1.4 percent)
2002: $1,050 out of $259,394 (0.4 percent)

Glad to put that on record.

The showdown between Dan Savage and Brian Brown (of NOM) took place on the Feast of the Assumption. The whole thing is here. Money quote:

“If you actually go back and look at the remarks closely, you’ll see that what I was actually trying to convey in my statement was that (1) I am a big fucking idiot, (2) I am a nauseating slug of a human being who doesn’t deserve to live, and (3) I am essentially everything that’s wrong with this country and with humanity in general. Honestly, that’s all I was trying to get across there. It was a simple misunderstanding, really,” – Todd Akin to the Onion.

Along with John C Willke, a key influence on Todd Akin is another giant in Christianist circles: James D Kennedy. Dish alum Zack Beauchamp is on the case, revealing that Akin "has deep ties to Reverend Kennedy, having cited some of his sermons as key intellectual influences and having been named in Kennedy’s book How Would Jesus Vote? as one of the Reverend’s 'favorite statesman.'"

Kennedy was a radical Dominionist, believing that the US Constitution is inferior in its view of government to the Bible. But Zack has homed in on his views on rape and abortion:

In “Abortion: Myths and Realities,” Kennedy labels victims of rape who chose unsafe abortions when safer procedures are illegal “hysterical,” saying “We are told by some of the radical feminists that the women will become hysterical, that they will abort themselves with coat hanger.” … Though not specifically addressing rape, Kennedy approvingly cited a Roman prohibition on abortion motivated by the idea that husbands should have control over women’s reproductive choice, saying “That newly created life is as much the husband’s as it is the wife’s. Historically, it is interesting to note that when the Roman Empire did away with laws that allowed abortion, it was done not because of the woman or the harm that abortions were doing to women (and indeed they do vastly more harm than most people are aware of), but because the husband was being defrauded of his progeny.” Interestingly, Akin has worried that criminalizing marital rape provides women “a legal weapon to beat up on the husband.”

Next week's convention will be a huge attempt to keep these views and voices from penetrating the public consciousness. But they are at the heart of the GOP base, which is now no more than an irrational, fundamentalist insurgency against modernity.

One dangerous old lady:

The Onion has the scoop on the legions of closeted gays about to descend on the GOP convention.

Many readers are echoing this one:

Akin and his ilk are entirely deserving of condemnation.  However, I’m not sure what you’re getting at when you say: “Yes, you read that right: ‘statutory rape can be consensual’.”  Depending on the jurisdiction, if two minors have sex, both can technically be guilty of statutory rape.  Statutory rape has historically included consensual sex between two people where one is just over the age of consent and the other is just under.  The obvious injustice of that has led to “Romeo and Juliet” laws in many states that provide it isn’t statutory rape if the participants are within 2-3 years of age of the other. Point being, I may well disagree with all of Willke’s views and I certainly think Akin’s comments were horrific, but the fact that statutory rape can be consensual is not exactly worthy of ridicule in and of itself.

In context, I see that now. My reader is right. Another points to the law in California:

Read together, the first two paragraphs of the state’s statutory rape law make it clear that – regardless of consent – two minors having sex can be guilty of statutory rape (which California refers to as “unlawful sexual intercourse”). Thus, two 16-year-old high school students having consensual sex with each other are both technically guilty of statutory rape.

Another:

Don’t you remember that 18-year-old football player in Florida who was sentenced to 10 years for sleeping with his 15-year-old girlfriend? In fact, CNN writes articles about it, which means it’s as common as knowledge gets.

Another:

The Dish has linked before to articles showing how the largest group of sex offenders are teenagers, many of the who had consensual sex that was deemed statutory rape. I am not defending Akin or any other Republican BS, but the fact is many of the statutory rapes are consensual. So, temper your enthusiasm with a little nuance. 

Duly tempered.

But let the spin begin:

Ian Millhiser reviews Ryan's record:

The man Mitt Romney wants to be a heartbeat away from the presidency claimed that abortion should be illegal except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life” as far back as his first House campaign in 1998. Throughout his career Ryan’s view has been consistent and unambiguous — rape survivors are out of luck.

Kate Sheppard says some of the legislation Ryan has supported is even more severe:

Although Ryan's anti-abortion credentials have gotten plenty of coverage since he was announced as Romney's veep choice, the full extent of the measures he's endorsed is breathtaking, and includes cosponsoring a measure that would allow hospitals to deny women access to an abortions even if their life is in immediate danger.

Buzzfeed has dug up video of Ryan railing against abortion health-of-the-mother exemptions. Jamelle Bouie says if "you live in a swing state, don’t be surprised if this video appears with a short endorsement from President Obama":

It’s almost unfair that Todd Akin is the new national symbol of anti-abortion extremism; compared to Ryan, he’s almost a squish. Akin received a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee during one of his six terms. Ryan has maintained a 100 percent rating throughout the same period.