• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Monthly Archives: July 2013

A case of psychological projection to “drewel” over

23 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brian Nieves, GOP, liberalism, liberals, missouri

As per Wikipedia:

Psychological projection was conceptualized by Sigmund Freud in the 1890s as a defence mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world.

Now for the fun. GOP state Senator Brian Nieves, while commenting about a “drewel” worthy gun,  casually let drop the opinion that  “liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.”

This from the man who thinks that the 2nd amendment guarantees his right to use a gun to restrain and threaten his political foes.

Of course, it’s also coming from the representative of a party that dabbles in opinions to the effect to that African-Americans are the worst racists in America, not to mention that Christians are more persecuted than gays.

The moral: always consider the source.

President Obama in Warrensburg: lining up for tickets

23 Tuesday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

missouri, Obama, Warrensburg

At ten this morning tickets for public access to President Obama’s speech on the campus of the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg on Wednesday became available for distribution. The tickets, one per person, were made available on a first come basis.  

The line outside. Photo: Jerry Schmidt, Show Me Progress

Photo: Jerry Schmidt, Show Me Progress

Photo: Jerry Schmidt, Show Me Progress

Waiting inside. Photo: Jerry Schmidt, Show Me Progress

Previously:

President Obama will be visiting Warrensburg, Missouri next week (July 19, 2013)

Vicky Hartzler: Wallowing in the pork trough while children do without

22 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agricultural insurance programs, agricultural subsidies, Farm bill, missouri, SNAP, Supplemental Nutrition Program, Vicky Hartzler

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) today issued a report identifying fourteen Republican representatives who voted – are you ready – to cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits from the farm bill while retaining massive agricultural subsidies they themselves receive. Collectively, the fourteen GOP piggies:

Have a total net worth of up to $124.5million;

Have received a total of at least $7.2 million in farm subsidies;

Each previously voted to gut the SNAP program by giving states large financial incentives to kick families off SNAP.

A charter member of the GOP’s pork swilling fourteen: Missouri’s Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-4). Her federally-financed take: $516,000; her total worth: somewhere between $2,218,026 and $13,854,995; the number of constituents in her home county, Cass County, who receive SNAP benefits: 8,664 or 9%. According to Rep. Hartzler, the House approved farm bill:

… secures a safe, affordable, and plentiful food supply by improving agricultural programs to be cost-effective and market-oriented.

“This Farm Bill saves taxpayer dollars by eliminating direct subsidies and payments to those who don’t farm,” said Hartzler. “In place of direct payments, farmers will have access to a low-lying safety net that offers assistance only after significant losses are suffered as a result of extreme droughts, floods, or adverse market conditions. This ensures American consumers won’t have to be dependent on foreign countries for our food. A safe, affordable food supply is vital to the national security of this great nation.”

However, as usual, Hartzler’s not telling us the whole story:

Republicans tried to claim that the passage of the farm provisions was done to help family farms, but this Farm Bill is loaded with pork and handouts for the wealthy and corporations. Farmers with incomes over $250,000 will receive one third of the crop insurance money. This Republican House passed windfall for millionaires and corporations comes at a time when net farm income is projected to reach it highest level since 1973.

Hartzler does try to weasel out of taking responsibility for redistributing wealth upwards, claiming that cutting direct subsidies to farmers who take land out of production while providing federally funded insurance subsidies to big agricultural interests constitutes a significant fiscal “reform.” As Lisa Ritland of the Denver Post put it, “While ending one egregious subsidy program, direct payments, a new potentially larger taxpayer giveaway was created.”

It’s clear who benefits here, but who gets hurt?:

… the typical household receiving aid under the farm bill through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has a gross monthly income of only $744, and their average monthly SNAP benefit-which every member detailed in this report voted against extending- is just $281.

Nor are the recipients the worthless “takers” that make the GOP and their supporters go rabid with self-righteous, tax-payer rage:

House Republicans aren’t starving able bodied poor people. Forty five percent of food stamp recipients are children. Twenty percent of recipients are disabled, and 8.5% are elderly. These aren’t healthy working age adults mooching off the system. They are the most vulnerable members of our society.

So, to recap, Children will go without food while millionaire Vicky Hartzler continues to lives the good life, pulling in the funds that should be supporting our much-vaunted safety net. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired to death of subsidizing the likes of the self-serving Rep. Hartzler.  

May the force be with you

21 Sunday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

bumper stickers

Oh, wait…

Image

blunt nips the bud

21 Sunday Jul 2013

Tags

Affordable Healthcare Act, health insurance, healthcare, healthcare reform, Missouri Senator, Obamacare, Republican Politics, Roy Blunt, Senator Blunt, Senator Roy Blunt, U.S. Senate

Posted by Michael Bersin | Filed under Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Twitter is fun!

21 Sunday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, ACA, missouri, Obama, Obamacare, Vicky Hartzler, Warrensburg

Today, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Yikes! The latest estimate says #ObamaCare is going to cost $2.6 TRILLION-not $900 billion touted initially. We can’t afford this albatross. 1:18 PM – 20 Jul 13

And a reply:

Scott T. Hillier ‏@fauxpascalypse

.@RepHartzler please link to a CBO or independent study for corroboration! 1:23 PM – 20 Jul 13

Heh. Don’t you just love the Internets?

You know, Representative Hartzler (r), the guy who they named Obamacare after will be in Warrensburg, in your district, on Wednesday. You could show up and take that up with him.

She probably won’t. If some random person on Twitter challenges her on undocumented assertions what do you think the President of the United States will do?

I’d pay cash money to see that.

President Obama will be visiting Warrensburg, Missouri next week

20 Saturday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

media criticism, missouri, Obama, Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, Warrensburg

This is the funniest take on that:

President Obama to visit Warrensburg, Mo.

July 18, 2013 5:49 pm  •  By Nicholas J.C. Pistor

The White House announced that President Barack Obama will visit Warrensburg, Mo., for a speech on the economy.

[….]

Warrensburg is on the western side of Missouri, about 60 miles southeast of Kansas City.  Obama hasn’t visited St. Louis since 2011.

[emphasis added]

Seriously? Uh, the last time President Obama visited Warrensburg was, well, never.

President Obama on Trayvon Martin

20 Saturday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Obama, Trayvon Martin

Today, at the White House:

The White House transcript:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_____________________________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release                                         July 19, 2013

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

ON TRAYVON MARTIN

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:33 P.M. EDT

    THE PRESIDENT:  I wanted to come out here, first of all, to tell you that Jay is prepared for all your questions and is very much looking forward to the session.  The second thing is I want to let you know that over the next couple of weeks, there’s going to obviously be a whole range of issues — immigration, economics, et cetera — we’ll try to arrange a fuller press conference to address your questions.

    The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of attention over the course of the last week — the issue of the Trayvon Martin ruling.  I gave a preliminary statement right after the ruling on Sunday.  But watching the debate over the course of the last week, I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a little bit.

    First of all, I want to make sure that, once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation.  I can only imagine what they’re going through, and it’s remarkable how they’ve handled it.

    The second thing I want to say is to reiterate what I said on Sunday, which is there’s going to be a lot of arguments about the legal issues in the case — I’ll let all the legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.  The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner.  The prosecution and the defense made their arguments.  The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict.  And once the jury has spoken, that’s how our system works.  But I did want to just talk a little bit about context and how people have responded to it and how people are feeling.

You know, when Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my son.  Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago.  And when you think about why, in the African American community at least, there’s a lot of pain around what happened here, I think it’s important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn’t go away.

There are very few African American men in this country who haven’t had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store.  That includes me.  There are very few African American men who haven’t had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars.  That happens to me — at least before I was a senator.  There are very few African Americans who haven’t had the experience of getting on an elevator and a woman clutching her purse nervously and holding her breath until she had a chance to get off.  That happens often.

And I don’t want to exaggerate this, but those sets of experiences inform how the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida.  And it’s inescapable for people to bring those experiences to bear.  The African American community is also knowledgeable that there is a history of racial disparities in the application of our criminal laws — everything from the death penalty to enforcement of our drug laws.  And that ends up having an impact in terms of how people interpret the case.

Now, this isn’t to say that the African American community is naïve about the fact that African American young men are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system; that they’re disproportionately both victims and perpetrators of violence.  It’s not to make excuses for that fact — although black folks do interpret the reasons for that in a historical context.  They understand that some of the violence that takes place in poor black neighborhoods around the country is born out of a very violent past in this country, and that the poverty and dysfunction that we see in those communities can be traced to a very difficult history.

    And so the fact that sometimes that’s unacknowledged adds to the frustration.  And the fact that a lot of African American boys are painted with a broad brush and the excuse is given, well, there are these statistics out there that show that African American boys are more violent — using that as an excuse to then see sons treated differently causes pain.

    I think the African American community is also not naïve in understanding that, statistically, somebody like Trayvon Martin was statistically more likely to be shot by a peer than he was by somebody else.  So folks understand the challenges that exist for African American boys.  But they get frustrated, I think, if they feel that there’s no context for it and that context is being denied. And that all contributes I think to a sense that if a white male teen was involved in the same kind of scenario, that, from top to bottom, both the outcome and the aftermath might have been different.

    Now, the question for me at least, and I think for a lot of folks, is where do we take this?  How do we learn some lessons from this and move in a positive direction?  I think it’s understandable that there have been demonstrations and vigils and protests, and some of that stuff is just going to have to work its way through, as long as it remains nonviolent.  If I see any violence, then I will remind folks that that dishonors what happened to Trayvon Martin and his family.  But beyond protests or vigils, the question is, are there some concrete things that we might be able to do.

I know that Eric Holder is reviewing what happened down there, but I think it’s important for people to have some clear expectations here.  Traditionally, these are issues of state and local government, the criminal code.  And law enforcement is traditionally done at the state and local levels, not at the federal levels.

     That doesn’t mean, though, that as a nation we can’t do some things that I think would be productive.  So let me just give a couple of specifics that I’m still bouncing around with my staff, so we’re not rolling out some five-point plan, but some areas where I think all of us could potentially focus.

    Number one, precisely because law enforcement is often determined at the state and local level, I think it would be productive for the Justice Department, governors, mayors to work with law enforcement about training at the state and local levels in order to reduce the kind of mistrust in the system that sometimes currently exists.

    When I was in Illinois, I passed racial profiling legislation, and it actually did just two simple things.  One, it collected data on traffic stops and the race of the person who was stopped.  But the other thing was it resourced us training police departments across the state on how to think about potential racial bias and ways to further professionalize what they were doing.

And initially, the police departments across the state were resistant, but actually they came to recognize that if it was done in a fair, straightforward way that it would allow them to do their jobs better and communities would have more confidence in them and, in turn, be more helpful in applying the law.  And obviously, law enforcement has got a very tough job.

So that’s one area where I think there are a lot of resources and best practices that could be brought to bear if state and local governments are receptive.  And I think a lot of them would be.  And let’s figure out are there ways for us to push out that kind of training.

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case.  On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk?  And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?  And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

Number three — and this is a long-term project — we need to spend some time in thinking about how do we bolster and reinforce our African American boys.  And this is something that Michelle and I talk a lot about.  There are a lot of kids out there who need help who are getting a lot of negative reinforcement.  And is there more that we can do to give them the sense that their country cares about them and values them and is willing to invest in them?

I’m not naïve about the prospects of some grand, new federal program.  I’m not sure that that’s what we’re talking about here. But I do recognize that as President, I’ve got some convening power, and there are a lot of good programs that are being done across the country on this front.  And for us to be able to gather together business leaders and local elected officials and clergy and celebrities and athletes, and figure out how are we doing a better job helping young African American men feel that they’re a full part of this society and that they’ve got pathways and avenues to succeed — I think that would be a pretty good outcome from what was obviously a tragic situation.  And we’re going to spend some time working on that and thinking about that.

And then, finally, I think it’s going to be important for all of us to do some soul-searching.  There has been talk about should we convene a conversation on race.  I haven’t seen that be particularly productive when politicians try to organize conversations.  They end up being stilted and politicized, and folks are locked into the positions they already have.  On the other hand, in families and churches and workplaces, there’s the possibility that people are a little bit more honest, and at least you ask yourself your own questions about, am I wringing as much bias out of myself as I can?  Am I judging people as much as I can, based on not the color of their skin, but the content of their character?  That would, I think, be an appropriate exercise in the wake of this tragedy.

    And let me just leave you with a final thought that, as difficult and challenging as this whole episode has been for a lot of people, I don’t want us to lose sight that things are getting better.  Each successive generation seems to be making progress in changing attitudes when it comes to race.  It doesn’t mean we’re in a post-racial society.  It doesn’t mean that racism is eliminated.  But when I talk to Malia and Sasha, and I listen to their friends and I seem them interact, they’re better than we are — they’re better than we were — on these issues.  And that’s true in every community that I’ve visited all across the country.

    And so we have to be vigilant and we have to work on these issues.  And those of us in authority should be doing everything we can to encourage the better angels of our nature, as opposed to using these episodes to heighten divisions.  But we should also have confidence that kids these days, I think, have more sense than we did back then, and certainly more than our parents did or our grandparents did; and that along this long, difficult journey, we’re becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union.

    Thank you, guys.

                       END                     1:52 P.M. EDT

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.”

19 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Chris Kelly, HB 253, Jay Nixon, letter, missouri, veto

“…The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter…”

Representative Chris Kelly (D). [file photo]

Representative Chris Kelly (D) replied to a letter he received on HB 253. The letter he received:

Dear Representative Kelly:

HB253 is the first opportunity in nearly 100 years to reduce taxes for all Missourians – and take a stand on the side of every day Missourians who have weathered the storm of this economic recession instead of special interests and government bureaucrats who only wish to serve their own interests.

Perhaps more importantly, HB253 would allow Missouri to stop spending and start growing by directing an increase in state revenues back to taxpayers instead of into expanding the size of government that promotes greater waste.

I urge you to support HB253 during the upcoming veto session.

Sincerely,

[xxxx]

The response from Representative Kelly (D):

Dear [xxxx],

Thank you for the letter regarding HB 253.

The bill is significant to me not simply as a state rep but also as a taxpayer.  I am 66 years old and had a heart attack this past May.  I now take six different pre[s]cription medications.  253 imposes the state sales tax on that medicine.  My pharmacist calculated that if the veto override, which you support is successful I will pay about $140 per year in sales tax; significantly more than any benefit from the income tax decrease.  I am not alone.  In fact I am probably paying less for medicine than most people in my demographic (geezers).  

The bill also imposes the sales tax on college text books.

In addition,  the bill allows income tax payers to go back three years to file amended returns and receive more refunds.  The sponsors claim that this is a “mistake”.  They now say that the prescription medicine tax is a mistake.  If anyone in the private sector made those kind of mistakes they would be fired.

That amounts to about  half a billion dollars worth of “mistakes”.  It turns out that all the “mistakes” are things wanted by Rex Sin[que]field, the guy who made more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions to the supporters of the bill.

This is one of the sloppiest bills I have seen in my 17 years in the House.  It is a disgrace that any legislator would allow it to move forward, if for no other reason than its quality.

The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter.

The very wealthy will see a huge benefit and average people will pay the tab. Every supporter of [HB]253 should be ashamed.

A further note.  The letter you sent me is a form written by the media people who are funding the political campaign for [HB] 253.  I’d like to know what your opinion is.

Chris Kelly

And that’s how you deal with astroturf.

Conversations With Billboards: It’s always that single wedge issue, isn’t it?

19 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

abortion, billboards, missouri

Previously:

Conversations With Billboards (July 15, 2013)

On separate billboards along U.S. Highway 50 in west central Missouri:

Are childhood nutrition, health care, education, and enrichment in the mix, too? Just asking.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Can play with AI, can’t be bothered to certify petition signatures
  • We could have had nice things…
  • Campaign Finance: but wait, there’s even more
  • For the company…
  • Iowa, I-80

Recent Comments

Uh, in case you were… on Some right wingnuts with money…
Winning at losing… on Passing the gas – Donald…
TACO Tuesday | Show… on TACO or Mushrooms?
TACO Tuesday | Show… on So much winning
So much winning | Sh… on Passing the gas – Donald…

Archives

  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 1,051,003 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...