Thousands fill the Capitol rotunda in Madison, Wis.

[seemslikeadream]

Republicans plan big fundraiser in D.C.
e-mail print By Daniel Bice of the Journal Sentinel
March 9, 2011 |(24) COMMENTS

State Republicans are planning to hold a big fundraiser at the offices of a major lobbying fim in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.

Supporters are asked to give at least $1,000 to the state Republican Party's federal account to attend the event at the BGR Group's offices in D.C. The cost is $2,500 to sponsor and $5,000 to host the fundraiser.

Those featured at the event will be: Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau; Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald of Horicon; Rep. Scott Suder of Abbotsford; Sen. Glenn Grothman of West Bend; and Joint Finance Committee co-chairmen, Sen. Alberta Darling of River Hills and Rep. Robin Vos of Burlington.

All five Republican congressmen and U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson are listed as invited guests.

Mark Jefferson, executive director of the state party, said his group is not trying to capitalize on the current controversy in Madison. He said this is an annual event, adding:

"It was scheduled well before the budget was introduced, and while we'll be doing all we can on various fronts to try to counter some fo the millions that national union bosses and Moveon.org are now pumping into the state to influence Wisconsin elections, this particular event doesn't really play into it much."

Bob Wood, former chief of staff and campaign manager for then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, is president of government affairs for BGR, formerly called Barbour Griffith Rogers.

One Democratic insider, who asked not to be named because he works with Republcians, noted the possible attendance of Johnson and U.S. Rep. Reid Ribble, political newcomers who were invited to the event.

"Outsiders no more!" exclaimed the Democrat.

UPDATE: A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy says his office never received an invite and that he won't be attending.

[Nordic]

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

really, what is the point? why does it bother them so damn much that some underpaid schoolteacher actually has a meager retirement plan?

these people are sadistic psychopaths and need to be treated accordingly.

[WakeUpAndLive]

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

really, what is the point? why does it bother them so damn much that some underpaid schoolteacher actually has a meager retirement plan?

these people are sadistic psychopaths and need to be treated accordingly.

Because it threatens their way of life.

To the list of descriptive verbs I'd like to add sociopaths.

[Jeff]

Perhaps appropriate here:

Finally, I venture, as a subject for reflection, a provocative theory. Naively, we imagine that the rich dread the coming ecological catastrophe. They either are unaware of it or feel powerless. But no. They desire it; they yearn for exacerbation, for disorder; they play at getting ever closer to the invisible edge of the volcano; they enjoy the excitement that obviously antisocial behavior procures.

[Nordic]

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

really, what is the point? why does it bother them so damn much that some underpaid schoolteacher actually has a meager retirement plan?

these people are sadistic psychopaths and need to be treated accordingly.

Because it threatens their way of life.

To the list of descriptive verbs I'd like to add sociopaths.

How do, say, teachers unions threaten their way of life??

[82_28]

The View From Rush Limbaugh's Recession

The Master Of The Republican Universe has discovered unemployment benefits, and he does not like them:

We all know Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, but unemployment compensation? The payment of unemployment benefits is almost as high as Social Security in this country. Folks, we are not going to survive as a nation, not the way we've been founded, with this kind of sloth and laziness and feeding at the public trough. It just cannot happen. And to even call this "wages" -- I'm actually kinda glad they did because it points out how ludicrous this is and how dangerous it is. "Handouts," handouts, the redistribution of wealth "makes up one-third of US wages." Social welfare spending has increased three and a half times since 1960.

We declared war on poverty, and it's given us this. We declared war on poverty, and what do we have? Thirty-five percent of our people living on the dole! Thirty-five percent of American citizens living on "handouts," and where are the handouts coming from? Their fellow citizens... I know it's depressing, folks. I mean some people are so lazy that they will only be unemployed if they're paid to be unemployed.

After this diatribe, an anxious listener called to confess his sins:

I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. I've been a conservative all my life. I don't agree with the welfare state -- of our country. I ran into a little bit of an issue a few years ago when I got some severe cancer and battled it for a couple years. I'm cancer free right now, but unfortunately I cannot work and I had to go on disability.

Here's how Limbaugh responded:

Do you think I actually think you ought to be denied stuff? Okay. I don't think that. I'm not talking about people like you, but there are people who fudge this disability business. I had a story not long ago about a bunch of drunks in jail getting disability payments because they were alcoholics. Well, we are a compassionate country. There is not a person in this country that does not want somebody who cannot provide for themselves to go empty. There's not a person in the world who wants that. You don't fall under the headline definition freeloader or what have you. And if you're bothered by it, it's life.

A lot of things affect a lot of people. But we're not talking about you. And you are not the majority of that 35% on the dole anyway. You're a small percentage of it. You're not the problem we're talking about.

One way to look at this is that when Rush Limbaugh really thinks the "sloth and laziness" of Americans mostly consists of jailed drunks on disability and equivalent cases. Another interpretation is that he lacks the courage of his convictions the minute matters move from the abstract to the real.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... ssion.html

[WakeUpAndLive]

How do, say, teachers unions threaten their way of life??

I'm not saying just teachers unions threaten their way of life, but as a collective the unions definitely put a dent in it. I should have been more clear in that sense, because unions alone do not threaten their way of life, but as a whole community we do.

[23]

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

really, what is the point? why does it bother them so damn much that some underpaid schoolteacher actually has a meager retirement plan?

these people are sadistic psychopaths and need to be treated accordingly.

From time to time, I will chat with a couple of union leaders that I befriended many moons ago.

And they will remind me that there is widespread interest, by an increasing number of governmental entities, to transform current defined benefit pension plans into defined contribution ones.

The only way that they can accomplish that, without having to negotiate that change, is by removing collective bargaining rights.. so that the transformation can occur by legislative/executive mandate sans the requirement to negotiate.

Their interest in removing collective bargaining rights is directly tied into their desire to transform the type of pension plans that most government employees have.

To use a metaphor to describe the difference between the two plans, one is a traditional savings plan and the other strictly an investment vehicle (i.e. 401K).

When you are obligated to pay a retiree a fixed monthly amount for the remainder of his life, you are obligated to handle your funds a lot more responsibly manner... then you would if you were permitted to gamble with/invest them.

The current campaign to strip public employees of their rights to collectively bargain is not an end objective. It is a means towards another end; one that I alluded to above.

[JackRiddler]

Behind every great fortune there is a crime, right? And every time you research big accumulations, that's what you'll find: some initial abuse of monopoly privilege, some patenting of a commons good, some crooked-crony public contract, some abuse of the law or paper scam, some crazy over-selling nonsense, some mean trick to create a problem that needs a solution, some nasty eviction of the impoverished, sometimes a genocide. The crime may be the thing that most shapes their mentality. First of all, it means a lot of them are criminal minded. Or just sick fucks, in the first place. The ruthless and smallminded rise. But even given a few big extravagant, even generous and genius personalities among them, the self-makers of the great fortunes spend a lot of time committing it, and conditioning themselves to justify it in their heads. They turn their excuses for it into the stuff of court depositions and history textbooks, telling themselves Jesus or the Darwinian principle or the iron laws of human nature wanted it to be so, building up that sense of privilege. Concommitantly those who didn't do the same thing when they had a chance are cowards and those who didn't even have the idea or weren't in a position to have the idea are sub-losers, not elect, mass, stupid, sheep. Mortal, to die and be forgotten! There must be monuments and awards and celebrations of the man and the heroic myth of his crime, or else that's all it is, just a crime, one that history might expose. This is why sometimes the self-makers are worse than the heirs who are just regular folk with a random birth into money, though the heirs are often even worse because the parental self-justifications and the social conditioning of the class and the pressure to live up to the impossible myth are projected upon them from the beginning.

What do you want, this goes way back. The noble lie, right? Mere conquest and plunder are unstable, they need to establish a myth to endure. Nobles told everyone a lie they were noble (chosen, made of gold not straw) so they could play the lord over the rest. They also lied to themselves that it was necessary, for order, to have someone in charge for society's progress, to allow the leisure time required to produce philosophy and science and art. The lie transforms the brain.

.

[JackRiddler]

How do, say, teachers unions threaten their way of life??

I'm not saying just teachers unions threaten their way of life, but as a collective the unions definitely put a dent in it. I should have been more clear in that sense, because unions alone do not threaten their way of life, but as a whole community we do.

An unspoken truth that even most union people don't realize: Remove the obstructions to the peaceful self-organization and self-education of the working classes, and all this unionizing really will eventually lead to socialism or at least social democracy and relative income equality. Let's say, where the topmost income bracket makes 10 times greater than a living wage. The rich way of life, if it means 10 mansions and million-dollar debutante parties for their snot-noses and crazy pet projects to glorify one's self, is always under the threat of that logic. If things don't constantly go backward, they swing forward.

.

[MacCruiskeen]

why are rich people so hell-bent on taking stuff away from those less fortunate? is it some psychotic way of dealing with their guilt? why are billionaires wasting so much time and energy trying to make sure that those who will never even be millionaires have even less? its like some kind of perverted hobby to them, like boys who kill frogs and cats and burn bugs with magnifying lenses.

That's a good analogy, Nordic, and I'd say you've already given a large part of the answer to your own question there. The natural next question is: Why are boys [so often] like that? And what makes them feel they should be like that?

There have been a couple of very pertinent quotes posted here and elsewhere by women in the last week or so:

If we give credence to the research detailing the centrality of affection in father-son relations and the relative irrelevance of the father’s “masculinity,” it becomes clear that boys don’t hunger for fathers who will model traditional mores of masculinity. They hunger for fathers who will rescue them from it. They need fathers who have themselves emerged from the gauntlet of their own socialization with some degree of emotional intactness. Sons don’t want their father’s “balls”; they want their hearts. And, for many, the heart of a father is a difficult item to come by. Oftentimes, the lost boy the depressed son must recover is the one not he but his father has disavowed.

- Terrence Real, quoted by Allegro in the RI "Quote-Only Thread".

Violence is boyhood socialization. The way we ‘turn boys into men’ is through injury… We take them away from their feelings, from sensitivity to others. The very phrase ‘be a man’ means suck it up and keep going. Disconnection is not fallout from traditional masculinity. Disconnection is masculinity.

- bell hooks, quoted by Molly at Qlipoth.

The recent discussions here about misogyny and patriarchy here have been very interesting and timely, and I wish I'd had more time to take part in them.

ON EDIT: See also the Bradley Manning thread. All this stuff is very closely connected - the cruelty and arrogance and vindictiveness of Scott Walker and his ilk & the cruelty and arrogance and vindictiveness of the bastards who are torturing Manning (and calling him a "fag"). Same people, same pathology. One of the names for it is masculinity.

One thing you can't hide
Is when you're crippled inside.

[Nordic]

The lie transforms the brain.

I think that might explain it more than anything else.

Good responses, everyone.

Mac, I wish you were able to post more!

I just keep thinking of how much money I would give away if I were a billionaire. Rush Limbaugh owns six Maybachs. Or is it ten? How dare he complain about unemployment compensation, when it's a payment from an INSURANCE program that the employee and the employer pays into?

It's like claiming that a car insurance company is giving you "welfare" when your car gets damaged and they pay for it.

What a fucking douchebag. Why anyone listens to that guy is so bizarre to me, it's a sign of serious mental derangement. My stepmom thinks of him like a family member, it's just weird as all hell.

re: the comments about boys. As a father, this is really important to me, the idea of, well, being a good father and teaching my son to be a man. It's really the most important thing in my life. I've seen other boys who crave adult male companionship and guidance, and it breaks my heart.

Boys can easily, I think, slip into a mode where they think that being strong and physical is the way to deal with everything. My son was just watching a show called "Adventure Time" and we had to make him stop, because in the show there's a boy named Finn who basically physically battles his way out of every situation, throwing himself headlong at any number and types of "bad guys". It's a boy fantasy, in a way, the idea of beating up bad guys, it's why superheroes are so popular at the same age. But we could see it start to affect our son in other ways, thinking he could use his superior size and strength (and my son is by far the biggest and strongest in his class) to get what he wanted. He wasn't turning into a bully, he's far too sweet and gentle for that, but this Finn character was starting to go to his head. We called him on it and explained why he couldn't watch the show any more, and why it was a bad influence on him. He actually understood, then he was mad at the people who made the show, and the network who shows it -- "why do they put on a show that's bad for you?" He wants justice. Always.

My son has a big heart. He's generous (more than I was at his age) and he's sweet, but he also shows a real natural desire to be "tough" and powerful. Feeding both of those needs, and educating him accordingly, is really interesting. Probably for another thread.

But I think what you were talking about, Mac, goes through generations, like that tsunami went through that farmland. Somebody, at some point, has to realize that what their father taught them was wrong. That's kind of difficult. In fact, the only people I know who feel that way about their fathers had absolute monsters for fathers.

Anyway ...... rambling .....

It is frustrating to realize that somewhere, dads MUST be teaching their sons it's okay to steal, cheat, and dominate the weaker.

[JackRiddler]

The lie transforms the brain.

I think that might explain it more than anything else.

Good responses, everyone.

Mac, I wish you were able to post more!

Actually, I think in this case (as in many others) Mac's take on masculinity and childhood conditioning and the brutality of power expresses more common and essential realities than my faux-Shakespeare construct about Why the King Is Such A Tragic Dick (and let's hope it ends with a good catharsis amen). Though there's plenty in what I said too. But Mac's aimed for a jugular of non-redemptive hurt and pain, the fucked up animal truth.

.

[Canadian_watcher]

How do, say, teachers unions threaten their way of life??

just playing devil's advocate here, because I believe unions are important, but here in Ontario the teacher's union is like some kind of other-worldly force. I wish they'd use their powers for good, but they often do not.

[justdrew]

The lie transforms the brain.

I think that might explain it more than anything else.

Good responses, everyone.

Mac, I wish you were able to post more!

I just keep thinking of how much money I would give away if I were a billionaire. Rush Limbaugh owns six Maybachs. Or is it ten? How dare he complain about unemployment compensation, when it's a payment from an INSURANCE program that the employee and the employer pays into?

It's like claiming that a car insurance company is giving you "welfare" when your car gets damaged and they pay for it.

What a fucking douchebag. Why anyone listens to that guy is so bizarre to me, it's a sign of serious mental derangement. My stepmom thinks of him like a family member, it's just weird as all hell.

re: the comments about boys. As a father, this is really important to me, the idea of, well, being a good father and teaching my son to be a man. It's really the most important thing in my life. I've seen other boys who crave adult male companionship and guidance, and it breaks my heart.

Boys can easily, I think, slip into a mode where they think that being strong and physical is the way to deal with everything. My son was just watching a show called "Adventure Time" and we had to make him stop, because in the show there's a boy named Finn who basically physically battles his way out of every situation, throwing himself headlong at any number and types of "bad guys". It's a boy fantasy, in a way, the idea of beating up bad guys, it's why superheroes are so popular at the same age. But we could see it start to affect our son in other ways, thinking he could use his superior size and strength (and my son is by far the biggest and strongest in his class) to get what he wanted. He wasn't turning into a bully, he's far too sweet and gentle for that, but this Finn character was starting to go to his head. We called him on it and explained why he couldn't watch the show any more, and why it was a bad influence on him. He actually understood, then he was mad at the people who made the show, and the network who shows it -- "why do they put on a show that's bad for you?" He wants justice. Always.

My son has a big heart. He's generous (more than I was at his age) and he's sweet, but he also shows a real natural desire to be "tough" and powerful. Feeding both of those needs, and educating him accordingly, is really interesting. Probably for another thread.

But I think what you were talking about, Mac, goes through generations, like that tsunami went through that farmland. Somebody, at some point, has to realize that what their father taught them was wrong. That's kind of difficult. In fact, the only people I know who feel that way about their fathers had absolute monsters for fathers.

Anyway ...... rambling .....

It is frustrating to realize that somewhere, dads MUST be teaching their sons it's okay to steal, cheat, and dominate the weaker.

hmm. I've thought that Adventure Time is a pretty smart show, rather than censoring it, help him understand that what he's seeing isn't to be directly emulated but is a metaphor for how to act in the world, generally using the MIND to effect change though. Really, Finn has to think his way out of most of his problems... or so it seemed to me.