Today the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported on the ongoing efforts of St. Charles County Councilman Joe Brazil (R-Defiance) to get bikes banned from rural Southwestern St. Charles country roads – seems he listens closely to those folks who resent having to share the road with bicyclists. As a person who frequently commuted to work by bicycle when I lived in the San Francisco Bay area – where, incidentally, droves of bicycles regularly share narrow, curving mountain roads with cars with few accidents – I could easily visualize the type of folks who might complain.

I have vivid memories of elderly people on deserted streets who, despite having acres of space in which to pass me as I hugged the side of the street, instead reduced their speed to a crawl and made exasperated faces and gestures as they followed me slowly along the street. Or the teen-age girls who yelled obscenities at me as I followed prescribed procedure for making a left-hand turn in traffic. This didn’t happen too often in Palo Alto, and the perpetrators were not people whom one would accord much credibility. In retrospect, however, their rather irrational sense of entitlement suggests that they might have been just the type of folks who would be at home at a Tea Party – which could explain our Republican pol’s concern for their druthers rather than those of bike riders.

Such speculation is spurious, of course, but it does seem that I might not be too wrong about many anti-bicyclists’ political sympathies. According to TPM, the Denver Post is reporting that a Tea Party friendly gubnatorial candiate, Don Maes, is opposing a public bicycle program in Denver as one more encroachment of the evil United Nations. In Maes own somewhat breathless words:

At first, I thought, ‘Gosh, public transportation, what’s wrong with that, and what’s wrong with people parking their cars and riding their bikes? And what’s wrong with incentives for green cars?’ But if you do your homework and research, you realize ICLEI* is part of a greater strategy to rein in American cities under a United Nations treaty,” he said. Well then: it all becomes clear

Now that I understand what’s going on, I guess it means that there’s no point in my petitioning to keep trucks off the roads because sharing road space with them is so unpleasant and potentially unsafe. We know who counts in Missouri, and they’re not usually Prius drivers.

* ICLEI: Denver is a member of the ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives), an international association that according to the Denver Post article  “promotes sustainable development and has attracted the membership of more than 1,200 communities, 600 of which are in the United States.” – Denver’s membership, however, predates the current Mayor’s public bicycle program.  

Given the lopsided turnout of hysterically aroused Republicans expected tomorrow, Proposition C is generally expected to enjoy a rousing success. Just for laughs, I thought it might be fun to take one last look at the narrative that drives its supporters. To find an example of pro-Proposition C rhetoric I had to go no further than an opinion piece penned by local Tea Party luminary, Carl Beardon, for the St. Louis Beacon. If you are interested in what is probably an exercise in futility, follow me over the fold:

Beardon wastes no time, but jumps in and goes after the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) with his metaphorical guns blazing:

“A “yes” vote on Proposition C — the Health Care Freedom Act — will tell the nation that Missourians have looked at this expensive, ill-conceived and unhealthy measure and rejected it.

“Unhealthy” – get the joke? A real pistol that Beardon. True, it is likely that a majority of the small fraction of eligible voters who are expected to hit the polls tomorrow may think the characterization sums the PPACA up. But given the reams of disinformation still churning out, one wonders how many have an accurate idea about what it does or doesn’t do? Or, to ask a more basic question, how many are capable of clearing their ideological closets sufficiently to find room for fact-based analysis? Certainly, Beardon completely undermines the implication that he has committed any acts of close analysis when he declares that he opposes the PPACA because:

… the government, rather than patients and their doctors would determine the level of care to be provided.

With this statement Beardon’s right up there in the realm of the mythical death panels, sprinkling pure Tea Party fairy dust. If you really want some fun, ask a Tea Partier to tell you how this terrifying government control works – based on the legislation itself, and not on the usual Rube Goldberg chain of hearsay hypotheticals and illogical inferences that they seem so ready to believe.

But enough of what supporters of Proposition C don’t know. What they really, really, think they know is that:

… there is more at stake than health care. The ballot initiative also represents a referendum on state sovereignty. … . It’s a mandate on individuals and states that goes beyond proscribed [sic] federal powers.

You’d think the fact that nobody actually takes Proposotion C seriously in this respect ought to deflate just a little of the oh-so-righteous self-importance that is so palpable in such declarations. Unless of course, the St. Louis Beacon is right, and these folks don’t understand that “a Missouri referendum cannot repeal the federal health care law.”

It gets even worse, though, when Beardon tries to get all fiscally responsible about mandates:

… employer-paid programs would be mandated, which will lead to job losses, wage cuts, loss of employer plans and accompanying choice of doctors or higher prices. All of which threaten the still struggling economy.

Of course, he offers no support for this assertion and, in fact, ignores the countless arguments, based on actual analysis by real economists who think that the PPACA has a fair chance of doing just the opposite.

At the end of his little op-ed, Beardon gets to what I suspect really drives the Tea Party love affair with Proposition C – pure spleen, the desire to put on a great big temper tantrum after last summer’s hissy fits failed to put finis to health care reform.  “Admittedly,” Beardon writes,  “part of Prop C is symbolic,” and one might add, clearly intended to put the fear of the Tea Party into legislators.  But most of all, it will be a kick in the pants aimed at Chris Koster, who wouldn’t let Missourians play with all the other kids who are filing lawsuits against the the PPACA:

Perhaps most important, Prop C would send a strong message to Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster, whose record so far on the federal health-care package has been disappointing.

Some people never grow up – too bad the rest of us so often have to bear the consequences of their foolish behavior.

FiredUp! posted photographs of Tea Partiers protesting a planned visit from their most enthusiastic champion, Michele Bachmann, on behalf of good ol’ boy Roy Blunt. One sign bears the legend “Save Michele from Blunt Trauma.”  This concern about her welfare vis-a-vis Roy Blunt may have come too late though, since Bachmann canceled her trip to Missouri in order to continue what her Website describes as a “full and quick recovery” from a “sudden” illness of an undisclosed nature for which she briefly visited the hospital on Friday.

Bachmann did address Blunt’s volunteers via Skype, but, nevertheless, if I weren’t so obviously averse to malicious speculation, and if her spokesman had not so very carefully indicated otherwise, I might be inclined to think that Bachmann may have already succumbed to a little Blunt trauma before she even got here – and I wouldn’t blame her if she had. The Tea Partiers I’ve seen are a pretty scary bunch. I wouldn’t want them thinking that I’d been using them and then dissing them.

* Photo showing Bachmann announcing the formation of a congressional Tea Party Caucus

You’ve probably heard that looney-tunes Rep. Michelle Bachmann has decided that what the Congress really needs is a Tea Party Caucus, as if almost the entire GOP, with a few brave exceptions, wasn’t busy pandering to what is, after all, their traditional base plus a few extra fringe crazies that have crawled out of the woodwork. Yesterday the caucus was officially recognized, and today Bachmann has released the list of the first 29 members. The only member from Missouri – drum roll here – Todd Akin.  

Okay, no big surprise there, birds of a feather and all, but what I’m interested in is where’s the rest of the Missouri GOP pols?  None of them seem to want to repudiate the Tea Party, but have, on the contrary, been more than willing to fall all over themselves in their haste to prove themselves Tea Party friendly. The big question is whether or not any more of them will be willing to cross over into overt Nuttopia. Or are they maybe a little worried that the Tea Party label is just a bit too compromised by dumb and crazy for ultimate respectability? It might be fun to watch our suddenly squeamish GOPers dance around this great new option with they have been presented.

Update:  Maybe the announcement of Akin’s leap into the Tea was premature? Or not.

Perhaps you read the recent story about a Missouri farmer who put a sign up in a field with the message:

Are you a Producer or Parasite Democrats – Party of the Parasites

Of course the punch line is that this gentleman, who is so indignant about “parasites,” has taken over $1,000,000 dollars in federal farm subsidies over the past thirteen years. This story, among others, serves to underline the fact that there are far too many small minds on the far right who aren’t at all bothered by the hobgoblin of consistency. Or to put it another way, the GOP winger base may not be made up of the best and brightest.

Since nature abhors a vacuum, for every right-wing simpleton, there is almost surely a cynical, bought-and-paid for huckster with the corporate line du jour on standby standing by ready to take up the slack. The proof? Look no further than Ed Martin, Russ Carnahan’s Republican challenger for Missouri’s third congressional seat.

Martin, who left his job as little Matty Blunt’s capo in disgrace, became a free-lance political jack of all trades, keeping himself viable with the right-wing through organizations like the Missouri Club for Growth and the Missouri Roundtable for Life. In his latest role, he has cast himself as a “leader” in the Tea Party crusade to takeover Washington.

True to the Tea Party ethos, Martin has been outspoken about the evils of government regulation. Most recently, he has come out swinging to protect poor little BP, shamelessly trying to pretend that the Gulf oil spill can be  blamed on excessive government regulation, a talking point that is gaining traction as the right-wing attempts to justify its inflexible ideology in the face of one more example of its failure.

Well, guess what? Just like our Missouri farmer’s disgust with parasitic Democrats, the story about Ed Martin as a valiant defender of beleaguered BP against the big, bad government has a pretty good punch line too.  After local bloggers, including SMP’s Clark, went to town with the fact that Martin seemed somewhat hesitant to file his federal income disclosure forms, he made a few feeble excuses – mostly to the effect that he was just too busy and it’s soooo hard to file those intrusive government forms. (Bear in mind that this guy expects us to trust him to have the energy and sufficient organizational skills to navigate the demands of a complex and demanding elective office.)

I’ll bet you’re not really that surprised, though, when I tell you that we are now learning that maybe Martin didn’t file these publicly accessible forms because he just might have had something to hide – like the fact that he has been kept afloat on a tide of big oil money. It seems his wife has oil holdings worth something in the area of $100,001 to $250,000.

Kind of puts a different light on our crusader. As the Carnahan campaign put it:

Letting Big Oil drill without oversight in the wake of this disaster is a position that defies logic – unless you realize that bigger profits for Big Oil would directly benefit Ed Martin’s bank account

It’s probably a good thing for Martin that the Tea Party types don’t seem to be too disturbed by good ol’ boys who conceal their conflicted interests – even when they’re playing the Tea Party faithful for fools.

Reps get spit on, windows broken, mysterious powder–and Palin blames the “lame-stream media”.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) excoriated DNC Chair Tim Kaine and DCCC Chair Rep. Chris Van Hollen, for “dangerously fanning the flames” in using recent acts of violence and intimidation by anti-health-care reform opponents, “as a political weapon.”

Was there spittle? Or, was there not?

There is so much spin going on all over the place it’s a wonder the number of car-wrecks don’t go up due to a permanent condition of dizziness afflicting the populace.

A friend of mine I play B-ball with said, “Don ‘t complain about Glenn Beck, the left’s got Keith Olbermann–the Republicans, Bill O’Reilly–and Democrats, Chris Matthews.”

It’s clear television news today is not your father’s nor mother’s fav journalist broadcaster. The days of Howard K. Smith or Walter Cronkite are gone.

So we have these ratings machines — FOX News, CNN, MSNBC — stoking reactionary stimulus throughout the neural networks of many a head, whipping folks up in their respective corners only to meet in the real world with shouting, disconnects, and yes, even acts of violence.

What are the solutions? I mean, quite possibly, there’s as much wrong with American media appetites as there is with our real eating habits of sugar, salt, carbs.

Maybe we’re just in the dark ages of the information revolution. Does that make sense?

I just finished a mentorship program with sixth grade students in Wellston, Missouri. We were helping students with projects for a Science Fair, and teaching them what the scientific method is. You come up with an idea–you test it–and appreciate knowing if you were right or wrong.

Teaching the method in simple terms gave me a clue as to what might be going on as the nation further fractures, polarizes and chasms, politically.

Scientific evidence shows that people like to be “right” and actually get a chemical lift from the experience, kinda like what a Ding-Dong and Coke’ll do to ya.

In fact, people like to be right so bad, that they will actually rearrange and distort facts to reach emotionally satisfying conclusions, as opposed to accurate ones. This is the filter of an addiction to the false sense of security in knowing you’ve got it all figured out; a comfortable and safe place, to be sure. Media venues pump a light-and-sound show that tweak this addiction to be “right”, and profit off of being pushers of self-reinforcing arrogance.

What I shared with my students was the fact that, as scientists, we have to lean against this propensity to always want to be right, and to embrace revealing facts and statistics that might–god forbid–actually disprove our theories, ideas or concepts. After all, as the story goes, Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb as much as found thousands of light bulbs that didn’t last until they discovered a carbonized bamboo filament that lasted lit-up for over a thousand hours. The point is, objective evidence may not feel good all the time, but an individual or community or nation that celebrates it, will be less prone to ego-satisfying folly or self-destructive cultural battles.

The problem with our political system resembling more of a sporting contest than a thoughtful democracy is that a sort of “March-Madness” begins to creep in (nothing against the beautiful B-ball we’ve been witness to recently). A large portion of folks are just hell-bent upon winning–delivering “Waterloos” to the other side at any cost–including damaging the better interests of the American people.

To think that not a single Republican voted for health-care reform is emblematic of the Napoleon-like mentality that has polluted our political universe.

Our nation is 233 years old, a youngster as compared to other cultures; adolescence can be difficult.  As America grows up, let’s make sure her citizens have access to the liberating mindset of the scientist seeking solutions, and move past the “I’m right, you’re wrong” political theatre that plays out more like a Greek tragedy, than the story of a modern, mature and manifest leader in the world.

This is why education is the investment in our future like no other. And making sure the education for future generations is the best we can deliver.

Representatives of the Party of No and its supporters responded in one of two ways immediately after the passage of the Senate bill on Mondayhealth care reform law – with violent rhetorical excess, or with real violence. The first characterized the GOPers in congress who competed to outdo each other’s demagogic excesses in their efforts to portray this bill as an  “outrage” that threatens democracy. Their tantrums arguably helped whip up the second, more violent response on the part of their out-of-control Tea Party dupes. The result? Violence and threats of violence against Democrats who had refused to be intimidated by months of implied threat.

The latest beneficiary of the Republican efforts to fan the Tea Party frenzy is Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-3rd). A coffin that had earlier figured in a Tea Party protest was left on the lawn of Carnahan’s residence Tuesday night. Even KMOV reporter Matt Sczesny, who has seemed at times perhaps a little too friendly to the Tea Partiers to be considered objective (they certainly appreciate his coverage, at any rate), was moved to observe:

… the police were not involved, since it doesn’t appear there was any direct threat and the coffin was empty. However, one can only imagine what may be implied by leaving a coffin on a front lawn.  We all know that emotions have been running high over the health care reform debate, but this has to make you wonder where this debate is going.

Sczesny is correct – even though the Tea Party is claiming that they have been “smeared” by Carnahan and the coffin was simply part of a prayer vigil in which it symbolized the death of freedom. Viewed in the context of the the recent threats of violence, Carnahan, along with all sane Americans, should be concerned about where the delusional hysteria and bullyboy tactics of this group may take us.

The individuals, however, who ought to be most concerned are our putative Republican leaders who have been willing to play on the emotions of the looney tunes brigade for their own political purposes. As Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo observes about the recent spate of violence:

… this didn’t come from nowhere and it can’t be pawned off on a few cranks. Everything that’s happened over the last five days has grown from a pattern of incitement going back almost a year — wildly hyperbolic statements, coded appeals to menacing behavior, flippant jokes about bringing firearms to political events and all the rest.

We need to contact our Republican congressional representatives and demand that they take responsibility for inciting fear and anger among their more unstable constituents, and for implicitly indicating that violence might be justified whenever individuals fail to prevail politically. Not that they’ll ever own up to their role – already they are fishing around for ways to blame the victims – but they ought to hear that a few of us at least know just what they have been doing – and that we will do our best to make sure that that knowledge becomes a commonplace.

Addenda:  Ezra Klein gets it right while keeping a calm, civil tongue in his head.

I am sure that I am not the only person who is puzzled by Tea Partier Liz Lauber’s primary challenge against Todd Akin, who is, after all, ranked by the National Journal as the 11th most conservative member of the House of Representatives. Makes you wonder what Lauber is really all about.

Well wonder no more. According to an article in the rightwing rag, The Washington Times, Lauber decided to run for Congress after her representative voted for the TARP bailout.  Of course, she is either confused or her representative at the time was someone other than Akin, since he was one of the Republicans to vote against the bailout. Hasn’t stopped her from giving him a primary challenge though.

Lauber is, it seems, anxious that nobody regard her candidacy as simply an exercise in anti-government bile. She is at pains to show that she wants “not just to stand against government, but to stand for something.”  To that end she and fellow Tea Partier, Phil Troyer, who is running for office in Indiana, have decided to copy Newt Gringrich and present voters with a Tea Party flavored Compact with America, the principles of which are about what one would expect:

-Passing real tax reform, such as a flat tax or fair tax.

-Requiring a vote of Congress to approve each federal agency regulation.

.-Banning earmark recipients from making campaign donations

-Prohibiting federal ownership interests in private companies.

-Requiring bills to be posted online five days in advance of a vote.

-Performing a federalism and constitutionality analysis of all bills.

-Voting for appropriations bills that reduce spending by at least 5 percent.

-Prohibiting federal funding of abortion.

-Offering a constitutional amendment for term limits.

All Mostly questionable provisions that should be very popular with Tea Party zealots – and nothing that Todd Akin would have a problem signing onto, with the exception of the term limits requirement. So the question remains, why would fringers in the 2nd district vote for Liz Lauber? Anti-government bile?

Update – having 2nd thoughts: As I look at the “compact” again, it strikes me that the third provision above – banning earmark recipients from making campaign donations – might be the source of difference between Lauber and Akin. Could it be that a group, initiated by astroturfers to fight health care reform and rational energy policy, has actually taken on its own life – apart from serving as an outlet for every variety of right-wing battiness, that is?  In spite of their silly rhetoric and “constitutional” craziness, do they actually get it when it comes to corruption?  If so, it could be really bad news for the Republicans who hope to march to victory in the Tea Party parade.

While reading Cynthia Davis’ comments about her proposed “Marriage Matters in Missouri Bill,” HR1234, I figured something out about the mental processes of people like Davis and the Tea Partiers who have endorsed her as “their” candidate. Talking Writing about one of the more innocuous aspects of her proposed legislation, a provision to waive part of the marriage license fee for couples who get some type of premarital counseling, Davis offers this observation:

I was surprised to discover that $27 of the marriage license fee goes toward child abuse and domestic violence shelters.  Why should the innocent citizens who are doing something honorable, moral and foundational to our civilization be forced to pay for the damage caused by those who are behaving dishonorably?  Statically, people who are “living together” are more likely to beat up their partners and children than married people, but they are not being asked to pay for domestic violence or child abuse.  The philosophical premise behind this fee is insulting to all married people.

Oh wow, I thought. I’m married and yet I would not be insulted at all if part of my marriage license fee had gone to help women and children trapped in abusive relationships, married or not.

Then I got it. What Davis is talking about is an aspect of the “freedom” that rings the Tea Partiers’ bell over and over. They are not worried abut the “freedom to be you and me” – they don’t even like that type of freedom – but rather freedom from the claims that individuals in a comity might be expected to exert on each other. In other words, it’s nothing more than narrow, bougie, mean-mindedness.

Ever wonder why the Tea Partiers throw tantrums about government spending, even when it is demonstrably beneficial and would actually pay for itself – like rational health care reform would? It’s because the spending is used for other people, very likely people who might be a little different from God’s select variety of tea people. They feel directly affronted that their money might be used for somebody who is poor and/or black (remember Saint Reagan’s “welfare queens”?), or those who have a different life style (perhaps cohabiting “dishonorably” per Davis). That’s what it means to usurp the freedom of a Tea Partier.  

Just for the record, I have to add that Davis’ assertions about who is involved in domestic violence aren’t just mean, they are also not necessarily true. For one thing, domestic violence is not well reported or understood, so sweeping statements about who is actually being abused and who is doing the abusing cannot be well substantiated.  

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) does collect and publish statistics for those cases that are reported to law enforcement agencies.  According to the BJS, individuals most likely to suffer from domestic violence are women who are separated – and the offender may be the separated spouse or a boyfriend.

Violence that culminates in homicide, however, is most likely to involve those noble married folks whom Davis believes to be so direly insulted by the wedding license fee. And jut to be clear, in 70-80% of domestic violence homicides, which, as we have seen, predominantly involve married couples, the guilty partner had a history of abusing his or her victim.

                                             

State Rep Jake Zimmerman always brings out an SRO crowd at West County Democrat meetings, and Monday’s gathering was no exception.  Summarizing the feelings of  “disconsolate” progressives everywhere, Jake wailed, “We’re dooooommed.”  Truthfully, it’s not hard to find things to complain about these days what with Loopy Joe Lieberman gumming up the works on health care reform and the relentless repetition of Sarah Palin’s latest nonsense in the media.

But Zimmerman cautioned his audience to take a step back and look at the long view.  A year ago, no one had heard of a “public option.”  The goal was to get more people insured and to put an end to some of the more outrageous acts of venality committed by the insurance companies.  And it looks like some of those major goals are going to be achieved soon.  Keeping in mind how long it has taken to get to this point, we really should be at least a tad optimistic about the future.

Yes, the filibuster thing is a pain in the…………..

 

but let’s not be hasty about changing the Senate rules.  As Jake reminded us, if it weren’t for the power of the minority party to gum up the works, G.W. Bush would have privatized Social Security and gotten away with tons more stupid stuff than he did.  Checks and balances work both ways.

President Obama has accomplished some amazing things in less than a year in office.  E.g, he’s appointing people to run agencies who actually believe in the mission of those agencies.  As a friend of Jake’s who works for Housing and Urban Development said,  Obama has put the “UD” back in HUD.  We now have people protecting public lands after two terms of Bush’s people giving the green light to some of the most egregious acts of violence against our national treasures.  We are already seeing a reversal in attitude at the FCC – thank goodness.   And who would have believed we’d see money budgeted for high speed rail in our lifetime?

(Aside: Obama’s loyalty to Geithner and that whole Wall Street insider crowd did not come up but probably should have.)

Sure, the media megaphone blasts Obama’s policy in Afghanistan, but what we aren’t talking about is how Russia and China are quietly agreeing with us on major problems like Iran and North Korea.   What a difference an election and a new president make. Obama’s foreign policy is based on long-term, strategic thinking.  He’s playing chess while his critics are playing checkers.

What about the tea bagger threat?  Zimmerman says we can, again, look at history.  Fringe groups, whether to the right or left, always end up fighting amongst themselves and fracturing whatever movement they manage to achieve.  Thus it is with the current slugfest over what TEA Party really means and who should control the club treasury.  Zimmerman admits the Dems might lose a couple of seats in Congress next year, but as we start to see the economy turn around and people aren’t as susceptible to the poisoned pills being dispensed by right wing quacks, things will settle down, and Obama will be re-elected in 2012.  

In answer to the complaint by some several members of the audience that  Democrats seem to be afraid to confront their critics,  Zimmerman reminded us that the best way to fight them is to win elections.  On that front, we need to get Robin Carnahan elected.  Even though the Repugs are doing everything they can to help us win by nominating a career politician who left his wife to marry a lobbyist and who has one of the most hated names in Missouri, we must pull ourselves out of our blue funk and work our butts off for Robin……starting now.

http://www.robincarnahan.com/