Connect with us

The GOP: Rich People Arguing Over How Much They Hate The Poor

Published

on

Even though it is sort of my job to do so, I have a really hard time sitting through these GOP debates. First of all, there are thousands of them. These people have shared the same stage so often that are now all eligible for Tony awards. After sixteen of these things, what topics could possibly remain unexplored? Their favorite Pizza toppings? Which is their favorite Kardashian sister? With thirteen or so debates left, we may be treated to arm wrestling matches between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, or a Rick Perry karaoke version of “My Heart Will Go On (Theme from Titanic)” before this is over.

Second, they aren’t “debates” so much as they are contests to see who can best slander Barack Obama. Debating usually involves people having divergent opinions on the issues. As policy nuance isn’t allowed in Republican politics, everything becomes a question of volume. “You hate the Health Care Bill? Well I REALLY hate it. Nobody hates sick people as much as I do.”

This is how you wind up with Newt Gingrich coming out in favor of putting poor children to work cleaning toilets for their institutional betters. To be fair, it’s possible that Newt would have done this anyway. Newt Gingrich is a pretty big asshole, so it’s hard to tell. Think I’m joking? Check it out this quote from the man himself:

It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid … You say to somebody, you shouldn’t go to work before you’re what, 14, 16 years of age, fine. You’re totally poor. You’re in a school that is failing with a teacher that is failing. … Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.

Delightful. This idea has the virtue of being at the same time insulting, patronizing, and horrible on a level rare for even the likes of Newt Gingrich. The idea of making destitute ten-year old children work as janitors for the amusement of the wealthy is positively Dickensian. This is one of the reasons I look forward to the general election should Newt grab the nomniation. The commercials write themselves.

INT. Classroom – Day

(A young boy in coveralls pushes a broom down a hallway, probably in slow motion, while wealthy children laugh heartily and throw change at him. Audio of Newt’s asinine comments plays in the background.)

V/O (Cont.): Help Barack Obama put a stop to the Gingrich Education Plan. Tell Newt to leave the children alone.

See? It’s that easy.

The other thing about Newt’s idiotic statement is that it shows an almost perfect ignorance regarding how hard janitorial work actually is. That Newt assumes this work can be performed by children is wildly insulting to the many thousands of hard working and chronically underpaid janitorial professionals. His disrespect for working people shows a level of detachment and snobbery sufficient to brand Gingrich as the worst sort of privileged, arrogant aristocrat, oblivious to the lives the non-wealthy live.

 


When did Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty turn into a Republican war on the poor? $10,000 wagers are about half a step away from paying homeless people to fight each other.


 

Remember, before Newt Gingrich was a big shot political juggernaut, he was but a lowly Geography professor at the University of West Georgia. I expect he ran into a great deal of janitorial staff in his time there, and I can only imagine the condescension they must have endured from Professor Gingrich. The University of West Georgia, as it turns out, is looking for some help in the Custodial Services Department, and they have a very nice description of what janitorial work involves:

This person will work in academic buildings, administrative buildings and residence halls on a daily basis cleaning restrooms, offices, classrooms, gathering and disposing of trash and vacuuming. Duties and responsibilities include: maintaining the appearance of offices, classrooms, hallways, laboratories, lobbies, lounges, elevators, stairways and restrooms by dusting, vacuuming, sweeping and removal of trash; cleaning and polishing light fixtures, marble surfaces and trims; washing walls and woodwork, windows, door panels and sills; sweeping, vacuuming, dust mopping, wet mopping, scrubbing, stripping, restoring, buffing and waxing floors; restocking supply closets and restrooms; setting-up chairs, tables and other equipment in classrooms, meeting rooms, and public areas as required; performing other duties as assigned.

Does that sound like the sort of thing that a ten-year old could do? I’d like to see Newt hustle a few twelve-hour cleaning shifts, and then talk to me about how easy this work is. I know janitors don’t make much money, but it doesn’t make the jobs they do any less valuable or deserving of respect. Custodial staff actually work for a living, and they work extremely hard. Newt so easily demonstrates his contempt for the working class, probably because the last time he was part of it was during the Nixon administration. We can’t all be paid consultants for Freddie Mac, after all.

When did Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty turn into a Republican war on the poor? It’s sort of their theme this cycle. If it wasn’t Herman Cain telling poor people to blame themselves for their lack of employment and failure to be fabulously wealthy, it’s widespread conservative opposition to the Payroll Tax Cut, and cowardly obstruction regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Republicans have finally found a tax cut they don’t like, and by what I sure is complete coincidence, it happens to favor the working class.

You even have Mitt Romney throwing around ten thousand dollar wagers on stage during presidential debates. I wonder if he is aware that there are millions and millions of people in the country for whom an infusion of ten thousand dollars would save their homes, or get them out of crippling debt, or help resolve the horrific financial straights they’ve found themselves in ever since greedy wall street bankers destroyed the economy. The GOP has a name for these people. They call them, “The Help.”

The concept seems clear: Government should be just big enough to protect “Job Creators,” (i.e. Rich People) but not so big as to allow for the protecting of anyone else. How long do they expect people to fall for this? Do they think they can beat a path all the way to the White House on the “Let Them Eat Cake” platform?

Here is my advice to the GOP: Try to look a little less like those two old guys from Trading Places. It’s hard to work that “Man of the People” angle when you are lighting your cigars with $100 bills. Also, consider cutting back on the $10,000 wagers a little. It’s about half a step away from paying homeless people to fight each other.

(Image)
Benjamin Phillips is a Humor Writer, Web Developer, Civics Nerd, and all around crank that spends entirely too much time shouting with deep exasperation at the television, especially whenever cable news is on. He lives in St. Louis, MO and spends most of his time staring at various LCD screens, occasionally taking walks in the park whenever his boyfriend becomes sufficiently convinced that Benjamin is becoming a reclusive hermit person. He is available for children’s parties, provided that those children are entertained by hearing a complete windbag talk for two hours about the importance of science education, or worse yet, poorly researched anecdotes PROVING that James Buchanan was totally gay. If civilization were to collapse due to zombie hoards or nuclear holocaust, Benjamin would be among the first to die as he has no useful skills of any kind. The post-apocalyptic hellscape has no real need for homosexual computer programmers who can name all the presidents in order, as well as the actors who have played all eleven incarnations of Doctor Who.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

IMPEACH HIM AGAIN

Rep. Al Green Files Impeachment Article Against Trump Over Iran: ‘Threat to Democracy’

Published

on

Tuesday morning, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) filed an article of impeachment against President Donald Trump over the United States’ strike on three sites in Iran this weekend.

Green’s article of impeachment alleges that Trump violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution. That section says only Congress can declare war.

“In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally-mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution. President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now, usurping congressional war powers,” Green wrote.

READ MORE: Just 100 Days in and Trump White House Is Already Prepping for Impeachment: Report

Though the meat of the impeachment article is about Iran, Green also calls out other objectionable things done by Trump.

“President Trump’s unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice constitutes an abuse of power when there was no imminent threat to the United States, which facilitates the devolution of American democracy into authoritarianism, with an authoritarian president who has instigated an attack on the United States Capitol, denied persons due process of the law, and called for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him—making Donald J. Trump a threat to American democracy,” he said.

Green’s article of impeachment is unlikely to go anywhere. The House is controlled 220-212 by the Republican party. Even though some House Republicans like Thomas Massie (R-WV) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) have criticized Trump’s action in Iran, even if every Democrat voted in favor of impeachment, it would be a tall order for nine Republicans to flip. An article of impeachment only needs a simple majority in the House before going to the Senate.

Trump is the only president to be successfully impeached twice. However, he has never been convicted.

Though Trump did not have Congressional approval to order the U.S. to attack Iran—and, according to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, they were only informed afterward—the Constitution isn’t as clear as it might sound. The last time Congress declared war was in 1942, but there have been many wars since then, but by different names; the Korean War was officially a “police action.”

The president is officially Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military, and as such, can order a response to attacks, or other limited military actions without the approval of Congress. During the Vietnam War (another “police action”), President Richard Nixon ordered the secret bombings of Cambodia without informing Congress. Once this was revealed, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution, which puts limits on what the president can do without Congressional approval.

Under the War Powers Resolution, a president can order a military action, but must inform Congress within 48 hours. Armed forces cannot stay in an area for over 60 days, though they can have a window of an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Trump has been accused of violating the War Powers Resolution twice before. The first was in 2017, when Trump ordered a missile strike in Syria over allegations the country had used chemical weapons. Next was in 2020 when the U.S. killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in a drone strike. Neither of these accusations, however, resulted in anything.

Image via Reuters

Continue Reading

CRIME

DOJ Sues Washington State Over Law Requiring Catholic Priests to Report Child Abuse

Published

on

The Department of Justice has filed suit against Washington state over a new law requiring Catholic priests to report child abuse even if knowledge of the abuse was obtained during confession.

The law, Senate Bill 5375, was signed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson on May 2, and would go into effect on July 27. The bill makes clergy mandatory reporters of child abuse and neglect, much like doctors and teachers. Catholic bishops in Washington have condemned the law because it does not address the sacred rite of confession.

Under the law, if abuse is revealed during confession, the priest must report it to police or the state’s Department of Children, Youth and Families. However, in the Catholic faith, the Seal of Confession directs priests to keep anything they learn during confession secret—even under the threat of imprisonment or death. Should a priest fail to do so, they would be excommunicated.

“I want to assure you that your shepherds, bishop and priests, are committed to keeping the seal of confession – even to the point of going to jail. The Sacrament of Penance is sacred,” Bishop Thomas A. Daly of the Spokane, Washington diocese wrote in a statement.

READ MORE: Pedophile Priest Sex Abuse: Catholic Churches Settle For $102 Million

A previous version of the bill did include a provision protecting priests from revealing anything learned during confession. Catholic bishops and Republicans in the state senate argued for the provision, but it was ultimately removed. All Republicans voted against the final version of the bill, along with two Democrats; it passed 28-20. Though the law requires priests to report abuse, it does not compel them to testify in court.

In response, a number of bishops filed a lawsuit, Etienne v. Ferguson, to stop the law. On June 16, a group of Orthodox churches in Washington state filed a similar lawsuit.

Gov. Ferguson, a Catholic, said he was dismayed by the suit.

“I’m disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids,” Ferguson said.

The Department of Justice joined the fray on Monday. The DOJ called the law “anti-Catholic,” saying it violates the First Amendment. Monday’s suit is a motion to intervene in Etienne v. Ferguson.

“Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement.

Senate Bill 5375 is the third time the Washington senate was asked to make clergy mandatory reporters. The bill’s prime sponsor was Sen. Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who told KING-TV she brought the newest version before the Senate after hearing that three different Catholic archdioceses in the state were under investigation over allegations of covering up abuse.

“Quite frankly, that made it hard for me to stomach any argument about religious freedom being more important than preventing the abuse, including the sexual abuse of children,” Frame said in January. “I really wonder about all the children who have been abused and neglected and have gone unprotected by the adults in their lives because we didn’t have a mandated reporter law and that we continue to try to protect this in the name of religious freedom.”

Image via Shutterstock

Continue Reading

'VERY COOL VERY NORMAL'

FTC Blocks Advertising Company From Boycotting Media Outlets Based on Political Views

Published

on

The Federal Trade Commission announced a strange condition of the merger between two giant advertising companies. The FTC allowed the merger, but blocked the new company from being able to boycott media outlets based on political viewpoints.

The FTC announced Monday that Omnicom Group would be able to go ahead with its $13.5 billion purchase of The Interpublic Group of Companies. The merger faced antitrust concerns as the two companies are major players in the advertising industry. Currently, Omnicom is the third-largest ad agency in the United States, and IPG is fourth-largest.

Assuming the acquisition continues as planned, the enlarged Omnicom would be blocked from “engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers’ political or ideological viewpoints,” the FTC said.

READ MORE: Right Wing Lobbying Organization Pushing States to Shield Companies From Political Boycotts

“Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Daniel Guarnera, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said. “Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate. The FTC’s action today prevents unlawful coordination that targets specific political or ideological viewpoints while preserving individual advertisers’ ability to choose where their ads are placed.”

The new rule comes after Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, complained that advertisers were boycotting the platform. Last August, X filed an antitrust lawsuit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, a coalition of advertisers, for boycotting X following Musk’s purchase of the company. Founding members of GARM include both Omnicom and IPG.

GARM was originally formed in response to the mass shooting in a Christchurch, New Zealand mosque by a white supremacist. The shooting was livestreamed on Facebook, and as such, advertisements appeared on the platform alongside the livestream. GARM aimed to block members’ advertisements from appearing on platforms that didn’t have safeguards prohibiting what the organization called “illegal or harmful content, such as promoting terrorism or child pornography.”

Days after the X lawsuit, GARM disbanded.

“GARM has disbanded under a cloud of litigation and congressional investigation. The Commission has not been a party to those actions, and I take no position on any possible violation of the antitrust laws by GARM. The factual allegations, however, if true, paint a troubling picture of a history of coordination—that the group sought to marshal its members into collective boycotts to destroy publishers of content of which they disapproved,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said Monday.

“GARM was neither the beginning nor the end of harmful and potentially unlawful collusion in this industry. Numerous other industry groups and private organizations have publicly sought to use the chokepoint of the advertising industry to effect political or ideological goals. Clandestine pressure campaigns and private dealings among these parties are less well documented but pose the serious risk of harm and illegality,” he added.

The proviso to the Omnicom merger is not the FTC’s only foray into this issue. This May, the FTC opened an investigation to determine whether or not advertisers coming together in agreement to not buy ads on certain websites due to political content constituted an illegal boycott, according to the New York Times.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.