Friday, June 26, 2009

Obama made him do it

For a fat, older guy, Rush Limbaugh certainly shows an amazing amount of flexibility in the way he manages to twist himself into logical contortions in his single minded quest to blame everything on President Obama and the left in general. Yesterday, he managed to blame Mark Sanford's extramarital, extranational affair on Obama. No, really he did.
This is almost like, "I don't give a damn, the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here," He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, "What the hell. I mean, the federal government's taking over--what the hell, I want to enjoy life."

In case you're tempted to give him the benefit of the doubt, Limbaugh later clarified his position.
A listener apparently sent Limbaugh an email during the program, asking if he was kidding about the White House's economic policies being responsible for Sanford's affair. "No!" he said, adding that the governor may have realized, "The Democrats are destroying the country; we can't do anything to stop it."

It's amazing how the party of personal responsibility always manages to claim it's failings are someone else's fault. Limbaugh gets points for stupid above and beyond the call of duty on this one by blaming Obama's economic policies for an affair that began before he had even been nominated for the office that allows him to set economic policy.

Looks like Rush fell off the wagon again.

On being prevented from voting

The right to vote is not stated in a clear, singular way in the US Constitution. Rather, it's scattered piecemeal throughout the main body and amendments leaving the courts to interpret just how the hell it's supposed to function. Originally, the Constitution only dealt with voting as it related to elections of the President, Vice President, and members of both houses of Congress. The states were allowed to set their own rights, requirements, and restrictions for voting. At first, the right to vote varied wildly from state to state. In some cases, this led to progressive experimentation, as when various states gave women the right to vote in local elections. In other cases, the result was far more regressive. Cases of the states restricting the right to vote were most obvious during the period between the Revolution and the Civil War. In the early days, most states limited the right to vote to white, male, (mostly wealthy) property owners. Since the Civil War, the states' definitions of the right to vote in local election have come more into line with the right to vote in national elections and with the rights in other states. But there are still exceptions.

About the only time that you hear about states restricting the right to vote these days is in the case of imprisoned and released felons. A few states never remove the right to vote; convicted felons are allowed to cast their votes in prison. Most states revoke the right to vote for felons during their time of incarceration. The biggest variety in state laws is in how they treat released felons. Some immediately restore the right to vote as soon as felons are released from captivity. Others restore the right only when all of the terms of their sentence (such as parole or probation) have been fulfilled. Quite a few never restore the right to vote. This issue comes up every election cycle and is used by the Republicans as a partisan cudgel to bash Democrats. Their argument is that Democrats are pro-crime, love criminals more that victims, and hope to bad the election roles with evil people who will, of course, vote for the pro-crime party.

Lost in all of this noise are several other groups of people who do not have the right to vote. Browsing through one of my old atlases the other day, I came across this table in Cram's Atlas of the World 1902 edition showing who could and could not vote in each state. It's interesting to see where things stood approximately half way between the ratification of the Constitution and the present. For each of the forty five* states the chart give the "Requirements as to Citizenship" in that state and the "Persons Excluded from Suffrage."

Alabama
Citizenship Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded Convicted of treason or other crime punishable by imprisonment, idiots or insane.

Arkansas
Citizenship: Citizen or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, convicted of felony until pardoned, failure to pay poll tax, United States soldiers on duty in state.

California
Citizenship: Citizen by nativity, naturalization, or Treaty of Queratero.
Excluded: Chines, insane, embezzlers of public moneys, convicted of infamous crime, person unable to read the Constitution in English and to write his name.

Colorado
Citizenship: Citizen or alien, male or female, who has declared intention 4 months prior to election.
Excluded: Under guardianship, insane, idiots, or imprisoned. Person unable to read the Constitution or statutes.

Connecticut
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Convicted of felony or theft unless pardoned. Person unable to read the Constitution or statutes.

Delaware
Citizenship: Citizen who has paid registration fee of one dollar.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, paupers, felons. Person who cannot read the English language and write his name.

Florida
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States
Excluded: Insane, under guardianship, convicted of a felony or any infamous crime.

Georgia
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States who has paid all his taxes since 1877.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, convicted of any crime punishable by imprisonment until pardoned, failure to pay taxes.

Idaho
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States, male or female.
Excluded: Under guardianship, idiots, insane, convicted of a felony, treason, or embezzlement of public funds, polygamists, or bigamists.

Illinois
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Convicted of felony.

Indiana
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention and resided 1 year in United States and 6 months in state.
Excluded: Convicted of crime and disenfranchised by decision of the court. United Stated soldiers, sailors, and marines.

Iowa
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, or convicted of infamous crime.

Kansas
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention or treaty with Mexico.
Excluded: Felons, insane, duelists, rebels not restored to citizenship, under guardianship, embezzlers, offering or accepting a bribe.

Kentucky
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Treason, felony, or bribery at election.

Louisiana
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared his intention.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, convicted of treason, embezzlement of public funds, all crime punishable by imprisonment in penitentiary, persons not able to read and write, and not owning property in the state assessed at $300, and not the son or grandson of a citizen of the United States prior to January 1, 1867, person who has not paid the poll tax.

Maine
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Paupers, persons under guardianship, Indians not taxed, and in 1893 all new voters who cannot read the Constitution or write their own names in English.

Maryland
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Convicted of larceny or other infamous crime, unless pardoned, persons convicted of bribery. Illiterates as defined.

Massachusetts
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Paupers and persons under guardianship, person who cannot read the Constitution in English or white his own name.

Michigan
Citizenship: Citizen or inhabitant who has declared intention under United States laws 6 months before election and lived in state 2 1/2 years.
Excluded: Indians, duelists, and accessories.

Minnesota
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention and civilized Indians.
Excluded: Convicted of treason or felony, unless pardoned, under guardianship or insane.

Mississippi
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Insane, idiots, Indians not taxed, felons, persons who have not paid taxes, persons who cannot read or understand the Constitution.

Missouri
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention, not less than 1 year or more than 5 before offering to vote.
Excluded: United States soldiers and marines, paupers, criminals convicted once until pardoned, felons and violators of suffrage laws convicted a second time.

Montana
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Felons unless pardoned, idiots, insane, United States soldiers, seamen, and marines, and Indians.

Nebraska
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded: Convicts.

Nevada
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, unpardoned convicts, Indians, Chinese.

New Hampshire
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Paupers (except honorably discharged United States soldiers and sailors), persons excused from paying taxes at their own request.

New Jersey
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention 30 days prior to election.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, paupers, persons convicted of crimes (unless pardoned) which exclude them from being witnesses.

New York
Citizenship: Citizen who shall have been a citizen for 90 days.
Excluded: Convicted of bribery or any infamous crimes, Indians under tribal relations.

North Carolina
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States
Excluded: Convicted of felony or other infamous crimes, idiots, lunatics, persons unable to read or write, unless lineal descendant of citizen of the United States prior to Jan. 1, 1867, nonpayment of poll tax.

North Dakota
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention 1 year, and civilized Indians.
Excluded: Under guardianship, persons non compos mentis, or convicted of felony and treason, unless restored to civil rights.

Ohio
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Felony unless pardoned, idiots, insane, United States soldiers and sailors.

Oregon
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention one year preceding election.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, convicted of a felony, United States soldiers and sailors, Chinese.

Pennsylvania
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States at least one month, an if 22 years old or more, must have paid tax within 2 years.
Excluded: Convicted of some offense whereby right of suffrage is forfeited, non-taxpayers.

Rhode Island
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Paupers, lunatics, persons non compos mentis, convicted of bribery or infamous crime until restored to right to vote, under guardianship.

South Carolina
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Convicted of treason, murder or other infamous crime, dueling, paupers, insane, idiots, person who has not paid poll tax, who cannot read or write any section of the State constitution, or can show that he has paid all taxes on property within the State assessed at $300.

South Dakota
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded: Under guardianship, idiots, insane, convicted of treason or felony, unless pardoned.

Tennessee
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States who has paid poll tax of preceding year.
Excluded: Convicted of bribery or other infamous offense.

Texas
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded: Idiots, lunatics, paupers, convicted of felony, United States soldiers and sailors.

Utah
Citizenship: Citizen, male and female.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, convicted of treason or violation of election laws.

Vermont
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Those who have not obtained the approbation of the board of civil authority of the town in which they reside.

Virginia
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States, able to understand and explain the State Constitution. Confederate soldiers and their sons exempt from education requirement.
Excluded: Idiots, lunatics, convicted of bribery at election, embezzlement of public funds, treason, felony, petty larceny, duelists and abettors, unless pardoned by the legislature.

Washington
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States.
Excluded: Indians not taxed, idiots, insane, persons convicted of infamous crimes.

West Virginia
Citizenship: Citizen of the State.
Excluded: Paupers, idiots, lunatics, convicted of treason, felony or bribery at elections.

Wisconsin
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States or alien who has declared intention.
Excluded: Insane, under guardianship, convicted of treason or felony, unless pardoned, Indians having tribal relations.

Wyoming
Citizenship: Citizen of the United States, male and female.
Excluded: Idiots, insane, persons convicted of infamous crimes unless restored to civil rights, unable to read State constitution.

A number of details about the social attitudes of the time stand out. On the rights side of the ledger, the most interesting revelation for most will be how many states allowed resident aliens to vote. That's one aspect of the good old days that would probably make Pat Buchanan's head explode. The presence of duelists on the list of those denied the franchise is probably a relic of the early nineteenth century. As a practice, dueling died out before the Civil War. The emphasis on treason is odd. In the entire history of the United States there have only been about forty treason trials. Although some of the leading politicians of the Confederacy were arrested, none stood trial for treason. The repeated presence of embezzlement and bribery as offenses that could lose one the right to vote probably reflect the culture of the robber baron era, or Gilded Age as Henry James dubbed it. I'm not sure if the laws addressed an actual need or just a perception in each of those states. The presence of polygamy and bigamy among the exceptions in Idaho was aimed at the larger Mormon minority there.

The first time I saw this table, it was the harsh repetition of the terms "idiot," "insane," and "under guardianship" that struck me. Two of the three terms had some measurable meaning in 1902. An insane person was someone institutionalized (though as I'll point out in a minute, even that distinction had it's problems). A person under guardianship, that is whose rights had been transferred to someone else; this also appears fairly clear. The problem with these two terms comes out of the social order of 1902 America. The people who were most likely to be institutionalized or put under the guardianship of another were not just the helpless and incapacitated, but the socially powerless as well, especially women. In many states it was possible for men to commit unhappy wives or difficult children for no reason other than that they were inconvenient. Many states committed "immoral" women (i.e. poor women on their own who got pregnant out of wedlock). These laws and attitudes opened the door for the eugenics laws of the next half century.

"Idiot" is the obviously difficult term. Leaving aside the un-PC-ness of the term, the biggest problem with the concept then and now is that it involves a subjective judgment, as later courts have recognized, but not remedied. In 1902, they didn't even have the fig leaf of flawed IQ tests to fall back on (Alfred Binet's scale, which has been the basis of all testing since, wasn't published until 1908). Someone, usually a low level functionary such as a county clerk or polling place worker, had the power to say "this person should not because I think they're not smart enough to." Despite the crassness and muddiness of the term "idiot," it is still in several states' constitutions and law codes. In 2007, New Jersey removed that language from its constitution (leading to all of the obvious jokes). News reports at that time listed at least six other states with the same language still on the books.

Rehabilitating "idiots" and the "insane" brings out conflicts that break along the familiar fault lines of contemporary politics. For every mental health advocate who wants to get rid of these overly broad categories and empower as many people as possible, there is a counterpart who wants to more rigidly enforce laws that will keep the "wrong" people from voting.

The elements of Jim Crow are pretty easy to see if you're looking for it. Poll taxes, grandfathering, literacy tests, property requirements, and other tools designed to keep African-American men from voting had become formalized along with legal segregation in the last years of the nineteenth century. What many might find surprising is that these laws were not restricted to the South. California and most of the states of New England used literacy tests to keep power in the hands of the old white elite.

What isn't mentioned often enough in discussions of Jim Crow laws is that, as far as voting was concerned, the laws weren't aimed only at African-Americans. Many of these tools were turned against other minorities, immigrants, and lower class whites just as easily as they were used against African-Americans. When subtlety didn't work (if those tricks could really be called subtle), some states turned to outright banning of entire nationalities. California, Nevada, and Oregon (and, by extension, Alaska) all denied the right to vote to Chinese immigrants and usually prevented them from becoming citizens no matter how long they lived here. Several states made a point of denying Indians the right to vote, but, for the most part, writing it down was a mere formality. As a group, Native Americans did not gain citizenship until 1924.

One group denied the vote that will appear puzzling to most will be soldiers, sailors, and marines. Except right after a victorious campaign, men in the military were generally held in low regard. They were viewed as rowdy, dangerous men and an imposition on most towns near bases. It was common practice for towns to try to keep military men on base and away from their daughters. Even bars sometimes banned the military. The relationship was similar to the town vs. gown conflicts around universities with the added dimension of rank and file military men being lower class. But that's what's being reflected here. The justification for denying military men the vote was the perception that they were resident aliens, that the bases weren't really part of the state, and that the inhabitants of military bases had no vested interests in the communities they were stationed near. On a more abstract level, for most of our history, a standing army has been an uncomfortable institution in the US. At the time of the revolution, a standing army was seen as a tool of royal repression. Some founding fathers argued against having an army, preferring to have citizen militias as the only defense force. With the example of a seemingly endless succession of military coups in our southern neighbors, later Americans became wary of the military becoming a class or interest group in politics. To counter that danger, many in the military thought it best to stay scrupulously aloof from politics. The best way to do that, they reasoned, was not to vote. Even today, you can find older officers who have never voted because they were taught that it was improper for them to do so.

As I said, the list is a snapshot of America halfway between the ratification of the Constitution and today. From day one, there has been a tension and conflict between the progressive urge for equality that aims to spread right to as many people as possible and the conservative for correctness that aims to reserve rights only to the deserving. It's a conflict that shows no sign of ever going away.

I brought all of this up for no particular reason except that I've been thinking about voting and constitutions lately.

* Oklahoma did not become a state until 1907, through the amalgamation of two territories (Oklahoma and the Indian Territory). The Arizona and New Mexico territories became states in 1912. In 1902, Alaska wasn't even a territory and used Oregon law since it had no legislature to make laws. It became a state in 1959. Hawaii, only recently annexed when the atlas came out, became a territory in 1901 and a state in 1959.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

A compassionate conservative on healthcare

On a call-in show yesterday, Republican former congressman Tom Davis was called out on his party's callous attitude toward the uninsured.
DOROTHY: Yes, good morning. I’d like to talk about health care. I’m in a predicament right now. I have diabetes, I’ve been shopping around, I’d like to retire at 62 and I’m having a difficult time. All — most insurance companies, they reject me for having diabetes. They don’t even want to accept me. Is that, is that possible they could get away with that?

[...]

I work in retail and I’ve been in contact with, you know, customers and I speak to them about it on this side. I hear their comments about health care and no one is satisfied.

DAVIS: Well, Dorothy, let me, let me say a couple things. First of all, you know, I understand the dilemma you’re in. ... If you can find a job with a major employer, they’re not going to be able to reject you under those cases. I don’t think you’ll find, probably be able to find some health insurance but if its with a small business or you’re going out on your own, it’s difficult at this point. There may be a government plan or private plans that are mandated coming out of this that are maybe able to help you. ... I don’t know any reason why you shouldn’t be able to find something out there, but you want to look for an employer that has a health care plan. Good luck.

[...]

UNNAMED CALLER: [O]ne of the things that I noticed this morning was Tom’s reaction to the woman who called looking for the job with health care and his final statement was “good luck,” which I think encapsulates the entire Republican party’s attitude towards any problems that are facing the American people today. ...

DAVIS: ... I think we all feel for people that are in those kinds of positions. But it’s very difficult. When you start having the government take care of everybody with a problem, as I said you’re doing it with borrowed money, what you want to see is — these are not simple solutions. It is progressive to continue to borrow money, to spend to take care of people’s problems. This tends to be a pretty inefficient way of doing things,... I don’t think “good luck” was like a kiss off. I would generally say good luck to you as you try to move through this problem. But I don’t know that she can count on Washington to solve it for her. She will be eligible for Medicare in 3 years. And at that point, you can probably get some relief on some of the issues she’s looking for.

Matt Corley at Think Progress does a good job of guiding us through Davis' contortions. First, he tells Dorothy that she's not going to get insurance unless she can get a job with a large company. That assumes that there is such a company in her area and that it hires her. As a service employee nearing retirement age there's no guarantee that she will find such a job. If she does, it will likely be a big box store and the Walmarts of the world have a terrible record of providing for their employees. Next, he says the healthcare bill might produce something that meets her needs (without mentioning that his party, aided by conservative Democrats, is doing everything it can to make sure the bill does not provide an alternative to the insurance companies that are the source of her problem). With the second caller, he says that we shouldn't create a government alternative because it might be expensive and that it's inefficient in any case. He produces his most painful twist at the end: "I don’t know that she can count on Washington to solve it for her. She will be eligible for Medicare in 3 years." That is to say, she shouldn't count on the government to produce any insurance to help her before she's old enough for government insurance. The message of the GOP is: "You're screwed. We feel sorry for you, but we're opposed to helping you. Good luck."

Let's give Davis the benefit of the doubt and assume that his "good luck" really was a sincere wish that things turn out well for Dorothy. So what? Even if things turn out well for Dorothy and for millions of other Dorothys, it's just as likely--maybe more so--that they won't turn out well. Right now, health insurance for tens of millions of Dorothys is a crapshoot. Maybe they'll have some, maybe they won't. It depends on who they're working for. Most people are not in a position to pick and choose who they work for. Unless they are at the very top of the food chain--one of the elite that Republicans pretend to disdain--one employee does not have the leverage to negotiate for better insurance with their employer. Many employees could join together to increase their bargaining power, but that's collective bargaining and Republicans are opposed to that. It doesn't matter whether Davis meant his "good luck" callously or not, the position of his party, the position he was on the air to defend, is callous.

I'm not the first to say it and I won't be the last, but I'll say it anyway. Those members of congress--Republicans and renegade Democrats--who don't think the government should be in the the business of providing health insurance should live up to their principles and opt out of the congressional insurance program. Let them look for insurance on their own. I'm sure some staffer (paid by us) will do the actual looking and some insurance company lobbying against the coming bill will give them a sweetheart deal. If the interruption of service and small inconvenience register, it will be worth it. And symbols matter. Make them put their money where their mouths are. Ask them at every opportunity whether they are still using government health insurance. Those who are should be held up to ridicule and contempt.

Our toes need names

All the digits on our hands have names: thumb, fore (or pointer), middle, ring, and pinky (or little). On our feet, only two have names, the big and little. The closest thing we have for a system that covers the other three is: market, home, roast beef, none, and wee wee wee. Any suggestions?

Saturday, June 13, 2009

Too easy

David Neiwert (who is finally getting some of the media attention he deserves) asks:
Is there anyone more congenitally dishonest than Jonah Goldberg working in the right-wing media? Deeply, appallingly dishonest?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.*

* "Simple Answers To Simple Questions" concept created by Duncan Black.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Unclear on the concept

The House Republicans just released their alternate energy plan. It's heavily slanted toward nuclear power, offshore and Arctic oil exploration, and alternative fuels. None of that is particularly new. The generous response would be to say that, although we might not agree with their plan, it's good to see that they have a plan and are participating in the debate. The cynical response would be to say that this is another bit of debate posturing like their work on the stimulus bill. That is, we can expect them to extract concessions from the Democrats, vote against the (to show the base how tough they are), and then to take credit for the bill they voted against. Count me among the cynics.

The elements of the plan that have so far elicited the greatest response from Left Blogistan are sections 502 and 503. These two sections amend the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the agencies that enforce those acts from considering greenhouse gases or climate change in their decisions or from taking any action that might improve the situation. The Republicans have finally crossed a line from being sincere climate change skeptics or big business advocates into a childish realm of being for climate change just because liberals, environmentalists, and Democrats are against it. Maybe if told them we were against suicide they would put themselves out of our misery.

It's worth a comment or two that their emphasis on fossil fuels doesn't square very well with their newly acquired desire to see the American auto industry die. Let's end our dependency on foreign oil just in time to start a dependency on foreign motor vehicles. That's not quite right. Considering the start up time for new oil fields, we would go through a transition period of a decade or so while we were dependent on foreign sources for both our oil and our cars. That would certainly go a long ways toward ending our economic strength and global relevance. If we listen to the House Republicans we will finally achieve parity with the Russians. And, by pitching our economy into the crapper, we can end the problem of illegal immigration. Emigration is another matter.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The museum killer

A few more details are coming out about James von Brunn, the Holocaust Museum shooter. Not surprisingly, he's a white supremacist and Holocaust denier of a Christian civilization flavor. In 1981 he was caught trying to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board and served four years in prison. At the time he said he was trying to perform some kind of citizen's arrest of a group he considered treasonous. This sounds to me like he's a student of some of the legal theory that the militias often promote. Law enforcement officials are looking into time he spent in Idaho. I can't find any details on what they mean by that. My guess is that he was at the Aryan Nations compound. Identity religion, Antisemitism, standard racism, militia legal theories, and a whole host of other conspiracy theories mixed together with a healthy urge toward violence in that part of the country in the eighties.

I recommend reading everything David Neiwert has to say about this over the next few days (here or here). He is one of, if not the, leading authorities on the subject. His book In God's Country is required reading for anyone interested. Dave also has a new book out on hate radio that has been ignored by most of the news media. He should be on every talking head show. If he's not, I recommend we all start writing to the shows demanding he be on. Start with Maddow and Olbermann and work your way down the list. I will.

It's a good thing right wing extremism isn't a threat in this country.

What the hell?

All of the major news agencies are reporting a shooting at the US Holocaust museum in Washington, DC less than an hour ago. So far, the story appears to be that a eighty-nine year old man came in with a gun, shot a guard, and was then wounded by another guard. No names or motives have been released. Though it's creepy to speculate, I have to say that I hope the shooter is not a Muslim. The last thing we need is the talk-show bigots starting another round of genocidal crusader paranoia.

Update: CNN has identified the shooter as James Wenneker von Brunn, so I think we're safe from an Islamophobia outbreak. Of course, the Fox News and talk radio crowd will find some way to blame Obama and liberalism for the shooting, regardless of what really set von Brunn off.

Another update: According to Atrios, we have had our first sighting of someone explaining why this is Obama's fault.

Thursday, June 04, 2009

Bisy bakson

My sisters are all coming down from from Alaska so we can deal with Mom's house and the estate paperwork. I'm not looking forward to this. Mammoth blogging will resume next week with the rest of the Teutobochus story. I might even find something non-mammothy to write about.

Monday, June 01, 2009

and piously they said a grace*

well boss
as much as it pains me
to say it
it looks like cheney
and his goons
on the far side of the aisle
may have had
the right dope after all
obama was elected
and the terrorists
have attacked

looking over the news this morning
i see that someone walked
into a church on sunday
as people often do
and shot a doctor
which people don t do
at least not in church
not yet
let s hope this doesn t
start a trend

the holy cows
of the religious right and
all their mindless acolytes
hated george tiller
with a burning hate
that shamed the novae
and supernovae
that light the skies
of distant worlds
in the milky way

of course
they never said hate
that s not
the christian way
with love in their hearts
and a song of
praise on their lips
they
called him tiller the killer
called him murderer
called him the mengele of our day
they said hands
were covered with blood
they said he belonged with mao
and hitler
and stalin
they said he must be stopped
they said he must be brought to
ironic quote justice ironic unquote

then they
bombed his clinic
laid siege to his clinic
shot him once
sent their jesse and his camera
to chase his lawyer
and another camera
to chase him
and call him more names
investigated him
prosecuted him
they discovered
a series of pipes
that they could use
to put his face on wanted posters
and tell their friends
how to find his home
to watch him
and call him still more
scary names

they cried
who will rid us of this troublesome doctor
and someone killed him
in a church
who could have
predicted such a thing

then
they said
we are shocked
shocked we tell you
to find that
anyone would listen to us
and act on our words
we hate violence and
hope no one will
think we are to blame
we have only
love in our hearts
and a song of
praise on our lips
we are as pure as
the driven snow
no terrorists we

with wide eyed innocence
they asked the whirring
cameras of the fourth estate
if other doctors
feel a terror
that other assassins
might be inspired
to do the same
and flee their clinics
and their patients
how can that be
our fault
we are secure
they said
in the knowledge
that terror never comes
from the right and
the church going
assassins are always
other people

and piously they said a grace

* or archy revised by john

aesop revised by archy

a wolf met a spring
lamb drinking
at a stream
and said to her
you are the lamb
that muddied this stream
all last year
so that i could not get
a clean fresh drink
i am resolved that
this outrage
shall not be enacted again
this season i am going
to kill you
just a minute said the lamb
i was not born last
year so it could not
have been i
the wolf then pulled
a number of other
arguments as to why the lamb
should die
but in each case the lamb
pretty innocent that she was
easily proved
herself guiltless
well well said the wolf
enough of that argument
you are right and i am wrong
but i am going to eat
you anyhow
because i am hungry
stop exclamation point
cried a human voice
and a man came over
the slope of the ravine
vile lupine marauder
you shall not kill that
beautiful and innocent
lamb for i shall save her
exit the wolf
left upper exit
snarling
poor little lamb
continued our human hero
sweet tender little thing
it is well that i appeared
just when i did
it makes my blood boil
to think of the fright
to which you have been
subjected in another
moment i would have been
too late come home with me
and the lamb frolicked
about her new found friend
gambolling as to the sound
of a wordsworthian tabor
and leaping for joy
as if propelled by a stanza
from william blake
these vile and bloody wolves
went on our hero
in honest indignation
they must be cleared out
of the country
the meads must be made safe
for sheepocracy
and so jollying her along
with the usual human hokum
he led her to his home
and the son of a gun
did not even blush when
they passed the mint bed
gently he cut her throat
all the while inveigling
against the inhuman wolf
and tenderly he cooked her
and lovingly he sauced her
and meltingly he ate her
and piously he said a grace
thanking his gods
for their bountiful gifts to him
and after dinner
he sat with his pipe
before the fire meditating
on the brutality of wolves
and the injustice of
the universe
which allows them to harry
poor innocent lambs
and wondering if he
had not better
write to the paper
for as he said
for god s sake can t
something be done about
it