Friday Reads: Mansplaining and other Nightmares of the American Culture Wars

Sometimes I just really want to reach through the TV or computer screen and slap the shit out of people. Bill O’Reilly is always high on my list. The last time he interviewed our country’s president he interrupted so many times that you had to wonder why he just didn’t lecture a chair like grizzly old Clint Eastwood did at the Republican National Convention. O’Reilly is at the top of my list for men I’d like to slap the crap out of for mansplaining why Madam President might have a downside to a pair of political consultants that are women..

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly invited two women onto his show  to discuss whether a woman could be the leader of the free world, expressing his concern about her “gender deficiency.”

Neither guest was having it.

Following up on a previous interview with Michele Bachman (R-MN), who stated that she did not feel that America was ready for a woman president, O’Reilly invited Republican strategist Kate Obenshain and Fox contributor Kirsten Powers on to discuss the issue.

O’Reilly started with Powers asking if there was “some downside to having a woman president, something that may not fit with that office, correct?”

“Hmmm, I’m gonna say say, no, Bill,” Powers replied, while Obenshain laughed.

“Just because you’re female that it would… something … ummmm,” Powers said, running out of words before asking O’Reilly, “Let me ask you this, whats the downside of a man being president?”

O’Reilly replied that it would take “three years” to discuss, stating, “look at some of the guys we’ve had in there since 1864.”

Turning to Obenshain, O’Reilly admitted that  men “may not be as open to sensitive discussion as women” and asked, “There’s gotta be a downside for a woman, do you know one?”

“Uh, you know , I’m having a tough time with this one too, Bill. It depends on the certain individual,” she replied before Powers interjected and Obenshain laughed and added, “Oh, good.”

Yes, folks!  There has to be a downside to stuff that makes you feel threatened and icky.  Ever notice how many straight men obsess on icky girl parts and icky gay sex?   I thought penis cakes were for Bachelorette parties, but there’s a Republican Man that thinks they’re an essential part of a gay wedding.  “Judson Phillips, president of Tea Party Nation, is a little upset about Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision last night to veto a bill that would have expanded the ability of business owners to discriminate against LGBT people and others.”  Methinks the dude doth protest a little too much.  He seems to have an unhealthy interest in other people’s sex lives.

Should a devote baker be required to create a cake for a homosexual wedding that has a giant phallic symbol on it or should a baker be required to create pastries for a homosexual wedding in the shape of genitallia [sic]?  Or should a photographer be required to photograph a homosexual wedding where the participants decide they want to be nude or engage in sexual behavior?  Would they force a Jewish photographer to work a Klan or Nazi event? How about forcing a Muslim caterer to work a pork barbeque dinner?

Perhaps he’s went to see “Hot Jesus” at the movie theatre and became bicurious?

Clearly Jesus was sexy.

After all, He is the Son of God.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but as I watched the trailer for the new movie, “Son of God,” I found myself gawking at the actor portraying Jesus.

For a group of people obsessed with immaculate conception and virgins, we sure seem to have a close up view of a few secret gardens, don’t we?  Yes, no one excels at mansplaining more than Catholic League President Bill Donohue who thinks that no one ever, EVER discriminates against the GLBT community and wants some one to come up with an example.

“Where are the examples of gays being discriminated against?” Donohue asked. “If they’re being discriminated against, how come they make more money than straight people on average?”

“Is somebody being denied at Applebee’s getting a hamburger? Where are these examples?” he followed up.

“Under the law in Arizona, there is no special protection of the LGBT community, so a business member, if he or she wanted to or she wanted to, could discriminate without violation,” Como said. “That’s why the law was unnecessary. Do you get that?”

“Can you enumerate for me examples of gay people in Arizona who are having their right violated by people of faith?” Donohue asked.

Yes. Nothing to see here.  Just move on with those penis cakes to some other place.

Turning oppressors into victims seems to be the new tactic in the Culture War.  White men with guns are scared of you black unarmed teenage boys going about your business.  Guess who has the right to use deadly force?  Then, there’s the continual series of jaw dropping court findings that continue to represent the worst of rape apologia.  Let’s just let the mansplaining begin.

In 2006, Kelly Vosgien pled guilty to three counts of rape, three counts of sodomy, one count of sexual abuse and three counts of compelling prostitution. The Oregon state court gave him a sentence of 55 years. These charges were brought against Vosgien after he traded cigarettes and money to his daughter and her friend in return for sex. Both girls were minors at the time.

The case had seemingly been put to rest until 2013, when Vosgien applied for habeas relief, claiming “actual innocence” with regard to his previous convictions, paying special attention to the charges of compelling prostitution. Vosgien missed the one-year filing deadline for habeas, but as is common and often imperative with retrials, the appeal was allowed to proceed.

The Oregon district court that handled this initial appeal used Bousley v. United States to throw out the innocence claim, citing precedent: “In cases where the Government has forgone more serious charges in the course of plea bargaining, petitioner’s showing of actual innocence must also extend to those charges.”

The second part of the court’s argument, less lawyerly and therefore more straightforward, claimed that bribing one’s daughter, or any child, in exchange for sex must constitute some sort of crime under Oregon state law.

In the end, the judge refused to alter any charges on the 2006 conviction, so Vosgien applied for a second appeal, which went to the 9th Circuit court.

This move, amazingly, worked—sort of. The court’s decision, filed February 13, reversed the ruling of the district court in part by throwing out the three counts of compelling prostitution. The argument that got Vosgien off the hook was based on a 2010 case, State v. Vargas-Torres, which narrowed the legal definition of “compelling prostitution” in Oregon. The court determined such a charge now requires that goods be traded for sex through a third party. Since Kelly Vosgien procured the sexual favors only for himself, these three counts will be stricken from his sentence.

“Goods be traded for sex through a third party”.  WTF?

Yes, everything up is down.  

Paula Deen’s $100 million empire crumbled last year after she admitted to using the N-word in her life, and as she continues campaigning to repair her public image with a $75 million investment deal on her side, the celebrity chef has compared her struggles to those of the NFL’s first openly gay prospect, Michael Sam.

“I feel like ‘embattled’ or ‘disgraced’ will always follow my name. It’s like that black football player who recently came out,” Deen said in a People Magazine cover story, which hits newsstands on Friday. “He said, ‘I just want to be known as a football player. I don’t want to be known as a gay football player.’ I know exactly what he’s saying.”

Yes, a white southern woman using a racist slur and giving plantation themed parties is just like the struggle of a black gay man trying to live authentically in the the NFL.

Is it too early for a whiskey neat?

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Friday Reads: With Liberty and Justice for All

Good Morning

I guess there’s something about “FOR ALL” that some people just don’t seem to understand.

I’m not sure where Arizona belongs in the category of states that really haven’t signed onto the Constitution yet, but it’s WAyyyyyy down there.

State senators voted Wednesday to let businesses refuse to serve gays based on owners’ “sincerely held” religious beliefs.

The 17-13 vote along party lines, with Republicans in the majority, came after supporters defeated an attempt to extend existing employment laws that bar discrimination based on religion and race to also include sexual orientation. Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said that’s a separate issue from what he is trying to do.

But Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said that’s precisely the issue.

“The bill opens the door for discrimination against gays and lesbians,” he said.

Yarbrough, however, said foes of SB 1062 are twisting what his legislation says.

“This bill is not about discrimination,” he said. “It’s about preventing discrimination against people who are clearly living out their faith.”

A similar measure is awaiting a vote in the House, probably later today.

Arizona already has laws which protect individuals and businesses from any state action which substantially interferes with their right to exercise their religion. This bill extends that protection to cover what essentially are private transactions.

The push follows a decision by the New Mexico Supreme Court which said a gay couple could sue a photographer who refused on religious grounds to take pictures of their nuptials. Yarbrough’s legislation would preclude such a ruling here.

But Gallardo said this legislation makes one person’s religious freedom an attack on others.

“We all have the right to our religious beliefs,” he said.

“But I do not agree that we have the right to discriminate because of our religious beliefs,” Gallardo continued. “I do not believe we have to throw our religious beliefs to others that don’t share our same beliefs.”

I had thought we’d gotten to the point where denying the rights of others was considered wrong.  But, I guess I’m wrong.  Jim Crow just keeps on raising his head.  Now, it’s Jane Crow, Juan Crow, and Freddie Mercury Crow.

Republicans lawmakers and a network of conservative religious groups has been pushing similar bills in other states, essentially forging a national campaign that, critics say, would legalize discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Republicans in Idaho, Oregon, South Dakota, and Tennessee recently introduced provisions that mimic the Kansas legislation. And Arizona,Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have introduced broader “religious freedom” bills with a unique provision that would also allow people to deny services or employment to LGBT Americans, legal experts say.

“This is a concerted campaign that the religious Right has been hinting at for a couple of years now,” says Evan Hurst, associate director of Truth Wins Out, a Chicago-based nonprofit that promotes gay rights. “The fact that they’re doing it Jim Crow-style is remarkable, considering the fact that one would think the GOP would like to be electable among people under 50 sometime in the near future.”

Several of these measures have sprung up within a short period of time. The Kansas bill wasintroduced by Republican state Rep. Charles Macheers  on January 16. On January 28, Idaho state Rep. Lynn Luker (R-Boise) introduced a bill that would prohibit the state from yanking the professional licenses of people who deny service or employment to anyone (including LGBT customers) on the basis of their religious beliefs. (There’s an exception for emergency responders.) Luker has since pulled that bill back into committee, to address concerns about the language being discriminatory.

On January 30, a coalition of Republican senators and representatives in South Dakotaintroduced a bill that would have allowed a business to refuse to serve or people due to their sexual orientation, or be compelled to hire someone because of their sexual orientation. Under this measure, a gay person who brought a lawsuit charging discrimination based on sexual orientation could have faced punitive damages of no less than $2,000. The bill also declared that it is protected speech to tell someone that his or her lifestyle is “wrong or a sin.” The bill was killed this week by the state Senate judiciary committee.

On February 5, Republicans introduced legislation in both chambers of the Tennessee Legislature allowing a person or company to refuse to provide services such as food, accommodation, counseling, adoption, or employment to people in civil unions or same-sex marriages, or transgender individuals, “if doing so would violate the sincerely held religious beliefs​ of the person.” (Government employees are excluded.) State Rep. Bill Dunn (R-Knoxville) tells Mother Jones that he sponsored the bill because “a person shouldn’t get sued for choosing not to participate in a person’s wedding.” But this week, the bill’s lead sponsor in the Senate, Sen. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown), shelved the measure until next year after facing heavy criticism. And in Oregon, voters could have the opportunity this year to vote on a ballot initiative that would also allow people to refuse on religious grounds to support same-sex couples.

In addition to these bills, lawmakers in Arizona, Hawaii, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Mississippi have recently introduced Religious Freedom Restoration Acts with a provision that could also allow discrimination against LGBT Americans. These state-sponsored RFRAs, which aim to stop new laws from burdening religious exercise, are nothing new—29 states already have some kind of RFRA in place through legislation or court action. But legal experts say that these particular bills are unique in that they allow individuals—and in some states, businesses—to cite religion as a defense in a private lawsuit.

My latest “Republican Asshat of the Day” is McConnell’s primary challenger who thinks that gay marriage will lead to Parent/Child Marriage.  Seriously.  I’m SERIOUSLY.  WTF?

There’s a number of Republicans that just can’t seem to grok the idea of the “FOR ALL” idea.  Some of them sell out their own demographic for religion or money or stupidity.  Michelle Bachmann may be leaving Congress, but, she is not going quietly into the night. I almost hate to link to this site, but it’s the original source. 

Bachmann was the only female GOP candidate in the race when she ran for president in 2012. She says, “Two things that need to be done: Remind people (Clinton) is seeking to become commander in chief (and) how she has operated in the past with these types of responsibilities. She was in charge during the Benghazi debacle. If a person reads the Senate Intelligence (Committee) report and the House Foreign Affairs (Committee) report released (last) week, it is damning for Hillary Clinton.”

Bachmann says Clinton testified before Congress that she was “aware” of the deteriorating conditions in Benghazi but did nothing. “She has a real problem when it comes to Benghazi,” says Bachmann.

In addition, she says, Clinton is “the godmother of Obamacare,” trying “behind closed doors” to push through something similar when Bill Clinton was president.

Maybe such an approach will work, but would the lure of the “first female president” overcome these concerns in voters’ minds? Bachmann says: “Effectively she would be Obama’s third and fourth term in office.” That might scare enough people to vote for the Republican nominee.

Bachmann says a lot of people “aren’t ready” for a female president. “I think there was a cachet about having an African-American president because of guilt.” (Presumably she means because of slavery and the lengthy denial of civil rights to blacks.) “People don’t hold guilt for a woman,” she says, adding that while people vote for women for virtually every other office “I don’t think there is a pent-up desire” for a woman president.

She says while Obama was “new and different,” Hillary Clinton has been around a long time and is less likely to stir the juices as Obama did.

It’s difficult to imagine any one that’s in less touch with reality than Bachmann.

“I think there was a cachet about having an African-American president because of guilt,” she said. “People don’t hold guilt for a woman.”

She added that while voters elect women for virtually every other office, she doesn’t think there is “a pent-up desire” for a woman president.

Bachmann, who was the Republican Party’s only female candidate for president in 2012, did have some prescriptions for would-be Clinton challengers, should Clinton run.

“Two things that need to be done: Remind people [Clinton] is seeking to become Commander-in-Chief [and] how she has operated in the past with these types of responsibilities,” Bachmann said. “She was in charge during the Benghazi debacle. If a person reads the Senate Intelligence [Committee] report and the House Foreign Affairs [Committee] report released [last] week, it is damning for Hillary Clinton.”

Least we forget, racist dog whistles still define many folks and these folks have now found a home in the Republican Party.  This sad news comes from the Wisconsin statehouse.  Outright Racism isn’t just for Southerners any more.

According to documents released Wednesday related to a secret investigation of Walker and his staff, then-deputy chief of staff Kelly Rindfleisch received an email in April 2010 that contained a photo of four dogs and mocked welfare recipients.

“This morning I went to sign my Dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, ‘Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare’,” the email, first reported by Buzzfeed, read. “So I expla ned [sic] to her that my Dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who the r [sic] Daddys are. They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because they are dogs.”

“That is hilarious. And so true,” Rindfleisch replied.

Rindfleisch was convicted of misconduct in office in 2012 for doing campaign work for a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor on government time.

The Scott Walker documents also contained a questionable email forwarded by another former aide, then-chief of staff Thomas Nardelli, involving a nightmare about waking up as black, Jewish, disabled, and gay.

Nardelli also circulated an off-color email containing a photoshopped picture of President Barack Obama wearing an acorn top for a hat, a reference to the now-defunded Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

It’s difficult for me to leave Republicans alone these days because they just. DONT. SEEM. To. GET. ANYTHING.   There’s no convincing them that actual history, economic, psychology, and ever branch of science negates their delusions.  It’s beginning to look like some kind of personality disorder.

Ya know, I’m the GGGG grandaughter and niece of a lot of signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and nearly every damned one of us at the family picnics are not religious people. I’ve heard many tales passed down from the greats, but a gawd writing The Constitution is not one of them.  In fact, no gawd is even mentioned in it.

Anyway, I’m turning the post over to you for the day.  What’s on your reading and blogging list?

Monday Reads: People are strange

Well, Good Morning!

I’ve been doing this thing on my facebook every day this year where I thought I could select just one Republican Asshat of the Day.  I figured it might be a bit of a stretch to come up with just one.  It turned out that I’ve found multiples of them every single day. This has put me in a strange frame of mind.  I’ve been sitting here questioning the nature of mind again; mine AND theirs. So, here’s a weirdish set of morning reads for you.

First up, the death of a snake handler that at one point had his own reality show.  Yea.  A snake bit and killed him.  Are any of us really surprised? Oh, he’s from Kentucky and not to be confused with my governor as folks are want to do these days.

 Snake-handling preacher Jamie Coots, who never backed away from his beliefs despite derision, criminal charges and excruciating bites, died Saturday night after being bitten by a rattlesnake during a church service.

Family members of Coots, 42, refused medical treatment for him. He was pronounced dead about two hours after the rattler sank its fangs into his right hand.

His son think he died some time before that, however.

“It was the quickest snakebite (death) I ever seen in my life,” Cody Coots said Sunday.

Jamie Coots’ death appears to be the first from a snakebite in a Kentucky church service since November 2006, when a woman died after being bitten while worshipping at a Laurel County church.

Coots, a third-generation snake handler, was the pastor of a small church in Middlesboro, Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name.

He had long been prominent among the small, close-knit circle of snake-handling Pentecostal churches in Appalachia, but he gained wider notice last fall though a National Geographic Channel program called Snake Salvation, which profiled him and other snake handlers. The show was not renewed for a second season.

Coots and 35 to 40 others were at a service at his church between 8 and 8:30 p.m. Saturday when a 21/2-foot-long timber rattler snake bit him near the base of his right thumb.

Cody Coots said his father was handling three rattlesnakes at the time.

Some of us are waiting for the verdict of the latest angry white man enabled by Florida Law to shoot and murder an unarmed teenage because he was  very very scared.  The jury appears to be hung up on the murder charge because of the weirdness of the laws in Florida .  So,  here’s a little bit on the poor frightened white man who is trodding in George Zimmerman’s psychopathic footsteps via a neighbor who knows him well. This little item was found by Susie Madrak.  This appears to be another dude just out there looking for a confrontation where he can shoot and kills some one.

Charles Hendrix, Michael Dunn’s former next-door neighbor, describes violent behavior, lies, insurance fraud, cocaine use, bragging about putting a hit out on someone, and a first wife who said he’d held a gun to her head and threatened to kill her. He says Dunn bragged that he was smarter than everyone else and could outthink them.

Watch the video interview.  I’ve lived next to a violent, angry, white man before.  Thankfully, he moved to Florida last year.  I’m just waiting for him to be the subject of the next stand your ground trial but I believe he will shoot a woman. However, it could possibly be his wife so they will probably ignore the whole thing and call it just simple destruction of unwanted property there.

Russian children will no longer be placed for adoption in countries that recognize same sex marriage.  Perhaps Russia thinks Uganda is a hunky dory place to live and the UK is a hell hole?

Citizens of the countries that permit same-sex marriages are no longer able to adopt orphans from Russia. A decree to that effect was signed by Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.

The Russian government has changed the rules for the transfer of orphans for adoption, having introduced an additional ban on foreign adoptions by same-sex couples. The decree published today on the government website contains a paragraph, according to which children can be adopted by adult citizens of both sexes, except for “persons of the same sex in alliance recognized and registered as marriage in accordance with the laws of the State in which such marriage is allowed, as well as persons who are not married, but are citizens of such state.”

Thus, the prohibition applies not only to adoption by same-sex couples (a law to that effect was signed by President Vladimir Putin in July 2013), but also to all citizens of the countries that recognize such marriages. “Implementation of this decree will ensure more streamlined arrangements for transfer of children without parental care to families of citizens of the Russian Federation and foreign citizens and will protect the rights and interests of these children,” believes the government.

Paul Ryan appears to be serious about trying to impeach President Obama over Executive Orders. Since when are executive orders a “high crime or misdemeanor”?

During an interview on CNN, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) laid the groundwork for impeaching President Obama by claiming that the president is abusing his powers and violating the Constitution with executive orders.

Ryan said,

There’s a difference between effectively using the bully pulpit to encourage good things in America and doing an end run around Congress. Look, everytime a president or a member of congress is sworn in, they swear an oath to protect and uphold the Consitution.

It sounds like to me the president looks like he is willing to circumvent the Constitution. The presidents do not write laws. That’s what Congress does. That’s Congress’ job, and if presidents try to circumvent congress by writing their own laws, then he is circumventing the Constitution. That is not our form of government.

I thought I’d give you some perspective on this.  Executive Orders have been used by Presidents since George Washington who used them 8 times.  Ronald Reagan used them a total of 381 times. Dubya Bush used them 291 times.  Obama has used them 168 times.

Okay, back to the latest about my nutter governor who has managed to run the state’s Elderly Care fund into the ground.

Gov. Bobby Jindal‘s administration is on its way to completely draining a trust fund for elderly care that lawmakers had expected to last for decades.

Louisiana’s Legislative Fiscal Office reportsthat the Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly, once flush with more than $800 million in cash, will be “almost entirely depleted” if Jindal’s budget for the next fiscal year goes through as proposed. By the middle of 2015, it will be completely wiped out, according to the analysis.

The governor, with approval from the Legislature, has been drawing money out of the fund for years to backstop health care budget gaps. Critics says the elderly trust fund was not initially created to be used in that way, though the Jindal administration and lawmakers are allowed to withdraw as much money as they need.

The $800 million was essentially supposed to stay intact, with only the interest and investment revenue being withdrawn every year to pay for state services. The idea was that the $800 million principal would continue to provide a steady stream of funding for the state government through its interest and investment earnings each year.

Yet during the next budget cycle, the Jindal administration has proposed effectively to take what’s left of the fund’s money, around $232 million, and use it to pay for nursing home payments for Medicaid patients.

The Department of Health and Hospitals said it needs the funding to make sure critical services aren’t interrupted for some of the state’s most vulnerable residents. The federal government recently passed a Medicaid reduction that slashed the program’s funding in Louisiana to its lowest rate in 25 years, according to the agency.

“Ultimately, the trust fund has helped to prevent steep reductions in provider reimbursement rates that would have impacted access to care,” said Jerry Phillips, undersecretary of the Department of Health and Hospitals.

This may leave the next governor and future Legislatures in a financial pickle, according the Legislative Fiscal Office’s report, particularly if the voters approve a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that ensures nursing home payments cannot be cut.

Jindal has been balancing the budget on the backs of higher education and public health for some time now.

I got a really weird phone call the other day from a pollster whose questions were so loaded that I could hardly answer them.  I think this explains it all. I was being tested to see if these Koch ads had any impact on me as well as ads by outstate republican congressmen who may run against Landrieu.  I basically told them I was an independent with a brain and they were barking up the wrong tree.

A new political attack ad from the Koch brothers-funded group Americans for Prosperity calls on Louisianans to tell Sen. Mary Landrieu that Obamacare is hurting their families.

The ad shows a number of people, who appear to be Louisianans, opening their mail to find a letter stating that their health care policy has been cancelled because of the Affordable Care Act.

“Due to the Affordable Care Act, your monthly premium has increased,” a voice-over says in the ad as a man in a rural neighborhood opens a cancellation letter and looks at his young daughter standing next to him. “No longer covered, due to the Affordable Care Act.”

But the people in the emotion-evoking ad are not Louisianans at all; they are paid actors

Landrieu’s support for the Affordable Care Act is a major sticking point in what promises to be a tough reelection campaign for the three-term senator. And her campaign is taking issue with the ad, characterizing its use of actors as “misleading” and “low.”

“Hiring professional actors to impersonate Louisiana families is low even for the billionaire Koch brothers,” Friends of Mary Landrieu Campaign Manager Adam Sullivan told ABC News. “If the Koch brothers had even a shred of credibility before launching their latest misleading ad campaign against Sen. Landrieu, they’ve surely lost it now.”

Americans for Prosperity is not backing down from the ad, with spokesman Levi Russell telling ABC News that it’s no secret that the people in the ad are actors.

“I think the viewing public is savvy enough to distinguish between someone giving a personal story and something that is emblematic,” Russell said when reached on the phone. “And we make it very clear when someone is giving a personal testimonial.”

Russell said the ad, in contrast to a “personal testimonial ad” that would use the story of a real voter, is “cinematic” and meant to be a “representative of Americans from all walks of life.”

My premiums have increased slightly but I am on a significantly better plan as a result of the Affordable Health Care Act.  That’s just for the record from this Louisianan.

But, I’m still not a person from Kansas or Mississippi.   Kansas still gives Texas a run for the money on outrageously horrible things to do to people.  Maybe we should offer the people there up to Russia and turn the entire place into a Buffalo wildlife preserve.

 The state’s wealthy governor, a moderate Republican, was hobnobbing with the attorneys at a prestigious Kansas City law firm one day in 1998; the mood was one of pleasant professional joviality, till one person worked up her nerve and chastised the governor to his face. Who among them dared? A secretary at the law firm, who faulted this celebrated Republican for insufficient conservatism.

What I found was that the descendents of the Populists were in rebellion; they were furious at “elites” and their social betters; it’s just that the politics of the situation had been inverted. (“Like a French Revolution in reverse — one in which the sans-culottes pour down the streets demanding more power for the aristocracy,” I wrote.) This was the dark secret of the whole nasty business: The right had developed an entire ersatz proletarian movement, a full-blown astrology of class discontent in which the hard-working average citizen was invited to feel himself imposed upon by upper-class liberals. Class animus was — is — central to who they are and how they think about the world. And it has caught on. In a place like Wichita, Kansas, you encounter it on every street corner. Hating “elites,” hating Hollywood, hating government, hating scientists — these are all part of everyday life. Yes, the reasoning behind this philosophy may be faulty; its origins may be suspicious; but it is powerful stuff, and in lots of heartland locales these days, it is just about the only form of social grievance being offered.

I say “secret,” but in truth the thing was obvious. It is everywhere — bestseller lists, cable news, AM radio, the floor of Congress. Polls have steadily tracked the migration of the white working-class vote to the GOP, and the disastrous results of this shift are plain to anyone with access to a Web browser. It is “secret” only because looking deeply into this situation was and is something that few are really interested in doing.

Why not? Well, for conservatives, the whole thing is mentally off-limits thanks to the blatant contradictions between their populist rhetoric and their rich-enriching policy deeds. They may talk proletarian righteousness constantly, but always in an evasive, sentimental way, more Norman Rockwell than John L. Lewis. If you want something more than rhetoric from them — something more solid than anger-stirring culture-war clichés — you basically have to be the Koch Brothers.

I should mention something in passing about that prestigious law firm and my cousins’ presence.  Don’t disown me.  I’m considered the strange one in my family.

Since I ripped off the song title today, I thought I’d share the actual song.

What’s on your reading and blogging list today?