More cracks in the Republican hostage plan. Yesterday, Glenn Kessler destroyed Amy Kremer’s claim that, “It is pure baloney to say we have to pay the bills for things Congress has already approved.” And today, Kremer’s group Tea Party Express responded, claiming that they really do think that the Debt Ceiling has to be raised.

This morning, Jonathan Chait wrote, Republicans: Okay, Maybe We Can’t Shoot the Hostage, But Maybe We Can Slap Him Around or Something. It reports on a Wall Street Journal OpEd by Keith Hennessey. In it, he floats an idea that is doubtless making the rounds at the Republican retreat: just raise the Debt Ceiling every three months or so.

This isn’t exactly new. Grover Norquist floated the idea of doing this back in November. He said that Republicans should just raise the Debt Ceiling according the Obama’s behavior, “Monthly if he’s good, weekly if he’s bad.” I don’t think there has been much coverage of just how offensive such talk is. He is suggesting that the president is a misbehaving child. But that’s conservatives: authoritarian followers when they’re in power; reactionary revolutionaries when they’re not. Anyway…

Chait goes on to note that this is a bizarre idea. This just sets up a situation where Republicans have to vote to raise the Debt Ceiling over and over again. And that just provides fodder for a primary challenge. But the problem is deeper than this:

Greg Sargent thinks it is similarly strange. But he provides the way forward:

What seems to be going on is that the Republicans are going through the process of understanding that the great leverage they thought they had—”Let’s destroy the economy!”—really wasn’t leverage at all. As I said yesterday, we will see what the next week brings. I think it will be the sound of the ceiling caving in.

Why? CNN is taking notes from The Huffington Post: CNN doesn’t need to pay its iReporters because it seems that just being noticed is an honor. I guess it is. I’d brag about it, even though it’s only a step or two above tabloid journalism anymore.

From a current CNN [1] article about Our OWN Queen Confessor.

So if a penitent narcissist apologizes to a narcissist who is a combination of L. Ron Hubbard and Dr. Phil, but who possesses the mesmerizing power of Hypnotoad, he shall be saved! Unless she rips him a new one, then he’s damned.

I think Scientology might have some competition from OWN.

[1] I should probably stop pretending that CNN is actually a news source.

Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of conservative pundits. First there is the bloviator that we all know from right wing radio. Rush Limbaugh is the best example of this. In fact, if you do a Google search on “bloviator,” Google offers, “Searches related to bloviator: Rush Limbaugh.” Seriously. The second is the Very Serious Pundit. Two people come to mind here: George Will and David Brooks. These guys seem very smart because they talk nice and for a conservative, that’s saying something.

But if you pay attention to what they actually say, rather than how they say it, you will find that—just like Deep Throat said—these are not very smart guys. Affirmative Action for conservatives! If they were liberals, I’m not sure they would even have been able to write professionally. But they have no lack of pretentiousness. In fact, that’s their brand.

David Brooks has been in the news recently, because he is teaching a course in humility at Yale. That’s right: a course in humility at Yale taught by David Brooks! If you made this shit up, you’d have to be a modern day Jonathan Swift. I don’t know what is more absurd: selling the children of the poor as a food source or creating a course on humility at Yale taught by David Brooks. Let’s call it toss up.

Luckily for us, Scott over at Backslash Scott is a student at Yale. And he attended the first day of David Brooks’ humility course. You know this is gonna be good, don’t you?!

He didn’t write too much. But he did provide some of the highlights:

Hopefully Scott will file more stories from David Brooks’ war on humility. At Yale!

The University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business did a survey of top economists on the issue of the Debt Ceiling. They asked whether those surveyed agreed or disagreed with the following statement, “Because all federal spending must be approved by both houses of Congress and the executive branch, a separate debt ceiling that has to be increased periodically creates unneeded uncertainty and can potentially lead to worse financial outcomes.” Of these people, 84% agreed or strongly agreed.

But you might ask: what about the idiot conservative “top” economists? What about evil conservative “top” economist Glenn Hubbard? I don’t intend to be mean here. It is just that Hubbard’s entire career has been one big money grab. Being rich is far more important to him than doing good work. And he’s right to make this “sacrifice” because he was still Mitt Romney’s top economic guy and he is still asked what he thinks by reporters at the Washington Post.

Case in point, Zachary A. Goldfarb at Wonk Blog ask Hubbard and three other conservative economists what they thought about the whole debt ceiling business. I have very little respect for these men, but even I was surprised at the apologetics that each one of them provided when asked about a government default.

Glenn Hubbard’s answer is telling. It really isn’t about economics at all. Instead, it is just a political attack on the president:

But even while being political, he isn’t accurate. There is no way that the Republicans will name their demands for spending cuts. The president already has stated what tax increases he wants. What’s more, he’s mentioned entitlement cuts. But the Republicans? Nothing.

Whenever I hear the term “conservative economist,” I think of “Nazi science” or “Jewish anthropology.” These aren’t real things. Scientists are scientists. Non-scientists are non-scientists. But in the case of people like Hubbard and Keith Hennessey, we should stop pretending and just call them what they are: conservative apologists.

Over at CNN iReport, the evil blogger TXBlue08 explains, Why I Raise My Children Without God. She does not have to make the case to me. I firmly believe that it is wrong to subject your children to your religious doctrine before they have developed “formal thought” (the ability to think abstractly), which generally occurs by around the time of puberty. Because really: if people got to choose their religion without the propaganda value of having one particular sect crammed down their throats, don’t you think they would pick different religions? The fact that people overwhelming choose their parents’ religion (or one that is closely aligned) does not indicate that one religion is right. Children of Buddhists tend to become Buddhists and children of Catholics tend to become Catholics. They can’t both be the One True Religion!

TXBlue08 gives good reasons for not raising kids to be religious:

• God is a bad parent and role model.
• God is not logical.
• God is not fair.
• God does not protect the innocent.
• God is not present.
• God does not teach children to be good.
• God teaches narcissism.

That last one is my favorite. Humans display so much hubris. Why do we think that we are so important? The universe was most clearly not developed for us. Want proof: we would instantly die almost every place in the universe. If God has a plan, it ain’t for us!

Go read the article, it is good. But it isn’t why I’m writing this. When I first clicked to the article, a splash screen popped up telling me that the article had been flagged. Did I really want to read this terrible article? Absolutely. But I got a tickle out of the warning. Angry theists were doing what they do best: oppressing the non-believers.

But there is good news. CNN posted a very nice update:

So good for CNN and bad for the “believers.” I guess the argument is that believers have the right to raise their children as they wish because, you know, they have God’s ear. This actually brings up an old philosophical idea: in the absence of God, humans must play the role. And most believers play the role perfectly—just as you would expect from a narcissist.

Afterword

I want to head off an objection I might hear to the first paragraph above. Teaching your children that there is no evidence of God is not a religious statement. Even the most hardcore atheists will admit that they don’t know. In fact, that’s the point. But Christians do not tell their children that maybe there is a God. They tell them that there is a God and that He is a very particular God. And that is just teaching kids things you have no right to teach them. It is like his father teaching Calvin that the sun is the size of a quarter. Except not nearly as fun.

It is pure baloney to say we have to pay the bills for things Congress has already approved. We are drawing the line on future spending, not the debt or obligations to Social Security, Medicare and the military, which can all be met without an immediate rise in the debt ceiling.

—Amy Kremer
Quoted by Glenn Kessler in the Washington Post

You may remember my very agitated video from the last time I saw Ms. Kremer: