And trying to avoid the news. I know it will all be about how Obama is failing and the Democrats suck. I understand the symbolism of Kennedy's seat going to a tea-bagging Republican. I get that. This was a bad day for Democrats, no doubt. And part of this is purely the Democrats fault, but like so many times, I wonder if they will not learn the absolutely wrong lesson, and assume that it means they are supposed to turn right. As if, of course, so many Democrats aren't already right of center. I think those who suggest that we already have a Republican party, and need to offer a real alternative.
I also think that the media stupidity does not help us. It helps the Republicans, even though they have nothing to offer right now. The media favors an overly simplistic view of the world, and that is exactly what the Republicans are selling. I read somewhere that Scott Brown (that is his first name, right?) wrote an op-ed in Boston where he laid out his policies, and they were all simplistic right wing claptrap. Tax cuts? Seriously? No serious economist thinks that is a good thing for our current situation. They may disagree about how we raise revenue and jump start the economy, but they all agree that tax cuts are not some magical talisman that heals whatever economic reality you see.
But that sells to people, as I noted before, who have no real deep thoughts about policy. Tax cuts are simple--and they ostensibly mean that individuals will have more money. Except when they result in reduced services and more pressure on local infrastructure. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that most middle and working class Americans have lost far more in services, tuition costs, healthcare costs, and in real wages than they have ever come close to gaining in tax cuts. It is a net loss, and a substantial one.
But it is genius for the right wing. Those losses are hidden, while the tax cut is visible. When you think about it, it is an amazing sleight of hand. You tell people you are giving them back their money, while you rob them with the other hand. They thank you for the tax cut and ignore the losses elsewhere. Same sleight of hand procedure, I suspect, that the right uses on Christians--giving them fake piety and language on the front, and then enacting unchristian policies in back. Tell them you follow Jesus and he is the most important person in your life, and then turn around and enact torture policies. And the Christian right turns out to vote for you.
Sigh.
January 20, 2010
January 19, 2010
Evidently 59 votes is not a majority
And a conservative friend told me that the current proposal was a "feel good" measure rather than real reform. Which, of course is why the conservative right went ape-shit over the healthcare proposal.
Right.
I will believe that Republicans are honorable people when they denounce the "death panel" bullshit of their party and actually produce something that helps average Americans. Until then, they can take their Tea Parties and shove them.
Right.
I will believe that Republicans are honorable people when they denounce the "death panel" bullshit of their party and actually produce something that helps average Americans. Until then, they can take their Tea Parties and shove them.
Word of the day: shit weasel
I know, I know. It is actually two words. But that is the phrase running through my head the last few days contemplating a Republican victory in Massachusetts. Yeah, the Democrats have lost a lot of energy in the last year. Some of that is explainable, and some of it isn't. And by all accounts, they put up a bad candidate in Mass to succeed Teddy.
But what do you say about a party that would gloat for weeks and months if they were successful in killing healthcare? It isn't as if they have an alternative in the wings that will actually provide coverage, or end the pre-existing condition. After 6 years of complete control of the Senate, House and White House, they did absolutely nothing to reform healthcare. And their objections now? I am sure there are many who have principled objections, but most of them simply want to defeat Obama. That's it. That is the sum total of their "principle."
They have told us the last several months that our healthcare system is the best in the world. Perhaps I am extra annoyed today because I found out yesterday I have a case of the shingles. Not a bad case, thankfully. I had these in junior high and they ruined several months of my life. This one is just an annoyance. And I have relatively good healthcare.
My doctor prescribed an anti-viral for me, and I was stunned to get the bill for $70, and that was with a substantial pickup by my insurance. Holy crap. One week's meds and it would have been over $250 if we didn't have decent coverage. Yeah, our healthcare system is in great shape.
Shit weasels.
The guy running for the seat pledges to be the "41st vote" against healthcare. That is his goal--to stop the best chance of reform since the New Deal.
Perhaps my anger is heightened by what seems like a complete lack of historical memory or even philosophical thought from so many conservatives. Don't get me wrong. I know there are many conservatives--and some who oppose healthcare--who have thought through their philosophy of government, and have read their history. And there are many liberals who have no clue why they are liberal. But, as our recent troll demonstrated, so many have only a superficial thought about government and taxes and governing. Talking to them about something as complicated as governing reminds me of the quote from Billy Madison:
\rant
But what do you say about a party that would gloat for weeks and months if they were successful in killing healthcare? It isn't as if they have an alternative in the wings that will actually provide coverage, or end the pre-existing condition. After 6 years of complete control of the Senate, House and White House, they did absolutely nothing to reform healthcare. And their objections now? I am sure there are many who have principled objections, but most of them simply want to defeat Obama. That's it. That is the sum total of their "principle."
They have told us the last several months that our healthcare system is the best in the world. Perhaps I am extra annoyed today because I found out yesterday I have a case of the shingles. Not a bad case, thankfully. I had these in junior high and they ruined several months of my life. This one is just an annoyance. And I have relatively good healthcare.
My doctor prescribed an anti-viral for me, and I was stunned to get the bill for $70, and that was with a substantial pickup by my insurance. Holy crap. One week's meds and it would have been over $250 if we didn't have decent coverage. Yeah, our healthcare system is in great shape.
Shit weasels.
The guy running for the seat pledges to be the "41st vote" against healthcare. That is his goal--to stop the best chance of reform since the New Deal.
Perhaps my anger is heightened by what seems like a complete lack of historical memory or even philosophical thought from so many conservatives. Don't get me wrong. I know there are many conservatives--and some who oppose healthcare--who have thought through their philosophy of government, and have read their history. And there are many liberals who have no clue why they are liberal. But, as our recent troll demonstrated, so many have only a superficial thought about government and taxes and governing. Talking to them about something as complicated as governing reminds me of the quote from Billy Madison:
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.And yet that incoherent approach to governing is reflected in their stars, from Glenn Beck to Sarah Palin. Is it too much to ask that we have a conversation about what our government means without a kneejerk "government is evil and the enemy of freedom?" How the hell are we both the greatest country on earth and given a government that is our enemy?
\rant
January 18, 2010
This is very troubling to me
And perhaps there is something I am missing? TPMMuckraker notes that American soldiers are using rifle scopes inscribed with abbreviated references to bible verses
including lines like "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."So help me out. An American soldier, someplace in country, is lining up an insurgent in their scope, ready to pull the trigger and kill this person, and doing so with a verse suggesting that they do this "for the Glory of God?" Am I the only one who finds that troubling?
That verse is rendered on tiny letters on the the scopes, made by Wixom, Michigan-based Trijicon, as "2COR4:6" referring to chapter 4, verse 6 of the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.
Assessing Obama
I obviously like reading Sullivan, though understand not everyone likes him. But on assessing Obama, I think this is a particularly good post.
I have a friend who voted for Obama primarily because he thought he would be best at bridging the partisan divide, and that he would make that his chief priority. I think Obama has done a lot to work with the right, but it is very hard to work with people who think that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make sense.
"Obama is a liberal pragmatist in politics and a traditional conservative in his understanding of the presidency. Once you grasp this, his first year makes much more sense."I am continually amazed, as is Sullivan, how both the left and right misunderstand Obama. The escalation in Afghanistan, for example. I am still not convinced that it is a good idea, but it is very hard to be surprised by this given how Obama spoke of this conflict from the beginning of his campaign. In fact, he continually echoed a foreign policy reminiscent of HW Bush.
I have a friend who voted for Obama primarily because he thought he would be best at bridging the partisan divide, and that he would make that his chief priority. I think Obama has done a lot to work with the right, but it is very hard to work with people who think that Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make sense.
He has also failed to end the cultural and partisan polarization in America. But he has not empowered it. The energy for this polarization has come from the hard left (which is angry at him) and the hard right, which, to a great extent, has gone completely bonkers in the wake of their defeat in 2008. This rabid conservatism - one that seeks more tax cuts as debt spirals, that thinks Gitmo is an asset in the war on terror, that wants no extension of health insurance, no bailouts, no stimulus - may well ride some populist anger to short term success at the ballot box (watch Massachusetts' by-election next Tuesday). But under Obama, the Republicans have become whiter, more extreme, more religious, and synonymous in the public mind with polarizing fugures like Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn beck. This may be a good ratings strategy for a cable network like Fox News, but it's a highly risky one for a party attempting to win back the center."Bonkers" may be the kindest word for the thugs on the right who have lost their freaking minds. As I said, Rush Limbaugh just told his Dittoheads not to contribute to Haiti, and there are a lot of the Republican base who think he makes sense.
January 17, 2010
CW and Obama
SOF and I made a Starbucks run this morning, our usual Sunday morning ritual. This particular one was a little different because we had to get up and give one of our cats an insulin shot with his breakfast. Eh. The cost, as I noted in an email, of an aging pet population in our house. He is doing fine, and we are getting used to giving shots--something I have not done since my youth on our small ranch.
Anyway, at Starbucks, I noticed the NYTimes in the corner and read the headlines. One was on how the Democrats are cratering and the election in Massachusetts is proof of that cratering. Opening the WaPo website on my return, and more of this doom and gloom.
Before Christmas, Anglican sent me this from Esquire: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?, which I had not gotten around to reading until this morning. Obama has been anything but a failed President during his first year. But if you turn on the Cable news or read the papers, all you hear is the bs that he has been ineffective and that the public is losing faith in the Democrats.
Of course, if you look at the polling data, you do see that Obama and the Democrats have sagged in the polls. No doubt about that. I have two explanations for that. 1) Obama and the Democrats have sagged, not because they have been to liberal and too adventurous, but because they have not been liberal enough. The stimulus package, while important, was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and other spending that did very little to stimulate the economy. Obama should have pumped billions into infrastructure spending as he first suggested, and put more people to work across the country. Likewise, on healthcare, as Greg Sargent notes, more people are unhappy with the current proposal because it doesn't go far enough, than those who say it goes too far.
2), and this is certainly related to the last point, but the media is still quite conservative. Sargent's interpretation of the polling data may be flawed, but it is an arguable case. But you won't hear that line on the supposedly liberal mainstream media. Yet, throughout the entire Obama administration, you can always count on the fact that the most conservative voices will be heard on just about every outlet. As The Atlantic noted, this is not a new phenomenon. In the 19th century, newspapers were commonly so associated with their political bias that they were named after their party affiliation: for example Wherearewe Republican, or the Whatever Democrat. For me this is new because we have a good segment of the population who has completely bought the myth of the "liberal media" which makes the conservative nature of our media nearly invisible. You can call that a hat trick for the Republicans. Even though their polling is even lower than Democrats or Obama, they have successfully controlled the message and Conventional Wisdom.
Not to say that Obama has not made some missteps. He certainly has. But I am increasingly tired of our media listening to people who have a track record of always being wrong.
Anyway, at Starbucks, I noticed the NYTimes in the corner and read the headlines. One was on how the Democrats are cratering and the election in Massachusetts is proof of that cratering. Opening the WaPo website on my return, and more of this doom and gloom.
Before Christmas, Anglican sent me this from Esquire: Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?, which I had not gotten around to reading until this morning. Obama has been anything but a failed President during his first year. But if you turn on the Cable news or read the papers, all you hear is the bs that he has been ineffective and that the public is losing faith in the Democrats.
Of course, if you look at the polling data, you do see that Obama and the Democrats have sagged in the polls. No doubt about that. I have two explanations for that. 1) Obama and the Democrats have sagged, not because they have been to liberal and too adventurous, but because they have not been liberal enough. The stimulus package, while important, was too small and too loaded with tax cuts and other spending that did very little to stimulate the economy. Obama should have pumped billions into infrastructure spending as he first suggested, and put more people to work across the country. Likewise, on healthcare, as Greg Sargent notes, more people are unhappy with the current proposal because it doesn't go far enough, than those who say it goes too far.
2), and this is certainly related to the last point, but the media is still quite conservative. Sargent's interpretation of the polling data may be flawed, but it is an arguable case. But you won't hear that line on the supposedly liberal mainstream media. Yet, throughout the entire Obama administration, you can always count on the fact that the most conservative voices will be heard on just about every outlet. As The Atlantic noted, this is not a new phenomenon. In the 19th century, newspapers were commonly so associated with their political bias that they were named after their party affiliation: for example Wherearewe Republican, or the Whatever Democrat. For me this is new because we have a good segment of the population who has completely bought the myth of the "liberal media" which makes the conservative nature of our media nearly invisible. You can call that a hat trick for the Republicans. Even though their polling is even lower than Democrats or Obama, they have successfully controlled the message and Conventional Wisdom.
Not to say that Obama has not made some missteps. He certainly has. But I am increasingly tired of our media listening to people who have a track record of always being wrong.
January 15, 2010
David Axelrod suggests that Karl Rove needs to check his figures
David Axelrod - What Karl Rove got wrong on the U.S. deficit - washingtonpost.com:
This was the easiest prediction from 2008--that once Bush was out of power, conservatives would suddenly remember the words "fiscal responsibility." But I am not sure I even anticipated the unbelievable gall of odious men like Karl Rove--people who worked closely with Bush on some of the worst policies with no transparency or oversight--now criticizing Obama on those same issues. Oh, and making up the facts as he goes.
If Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the best representation of the conservative base--anti-intellectual and fundamentalist, then Rove is the best representation of the cynical and openly dishonest and unethical wing of the party that actually made decisions during Bush's term. These are the people who actively worked to disenfranchise people of color, or created fraudulent vote fraud cases to present around election time, or who worked on science panels to undermine science.
It has to be one of the most glaring contradictions in history that the people most draped in Biblical conservatism and "moral values" have instituted some of the least Biblical and least moral policies in American history. All, I might reiterate, at the cheering of the evangelical right.
"So, let's review a little history:
The day the Bush administration took over from President Bill Clinton in 2001, America enjoyed a $236 billion budget surplus -- with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. When the Bush administration left office, it handed President Obama a $1.3 trillion deficit -- and projected shortfalls of $8 trillion for the next decade. During eight years in office, the Bush administration passed two major tax cuts skewed to the wealthiest Americans, enacted a costly Medicare prescription-drug benefit and waged two wars, without paying for any of it.
To put the breathtaking scope of this irresponsibility in perspective, the Bush administration's swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined. And its spending spree is the unwelcome gift that keeps on giving: Going forward, these unpaid-for policies will continue to add trillions to our deficit."
This was the easiest prediction from 2008--that once Bush was out of power, conservatives would suddenly remember the words "fiscal responsibility." But I am not sure I even anticipated the unbelievable gall of odious men like Karl Rove--people who worked closely with Bush on some of the worst policies with no transparency or oversight--now criticizing Obama on those same issues. Oh, and making up the facts as he goes.
If Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the best representation of the conservative base--anti-intellectual and fundamentalist, then Rove is the best representation of the cynical and openly dishonest and unethical wing of the party that actually made decisions during Bush's term. These are the people who actively worked to disenfranchise people of color, or created fraudulent vote fraud cases to present around election time, or who worked on science panels to undermine science.
It has to be one of the most glaring contradictions in history that the people most draped in Biblical conservatism and "moral values" have instituted some of the least Biblical and least moral policies in American history. All, I might reiterate, at the cheering of the evangelical right.
Sarah Palin Debuts as Fox News Contributor
And gives us her great insight into the race story with Harry Reid. Sarah Palin Debuts as Fox News Contributor - Bill O'Reilly | The O'Reilly Factor - FOXNews.com:
Yes, again, we have one politician lamenting the end of segregation and one saying that an African American man can be President, but using a poor choice of words. Of course, in Sarah Palin's world, that is the same thing. Because she is dumber than we think. We should never over-estimate her ability to be stupid.
"PALIN: I know. And that double standard is — and that hypocrisy is another reason why so many Americans are quite disgusted with the political games that are played, not only on both sides of the aisle, but in this case, on the left wing, what they are playing with this game of racism and kind of letting Harry Reid's comments slide, but having crucified Trent Lott for essentially along the same lines (inaudible)."
Yes, again, we have one politician lamenting the end of segregation and one saying that an African American man can be President, but using a poor choice of words. Of course, in Sarah Palin's world, that is the same thing. Because she is dumber than we think. We should never over-estimate her ability to be stupid.
January 14, 2010
Um, this is part of the right's race problem
I know, I know. Conservatives with brains just hate that Rush is considered conservative. Most of the conservatives I know no longer listen to him, and consider him a problem. But he is still very much associated with the base, and adored by the Tea Party types. And when you listen to him say that Obama will use Haiti to boost credibility with "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country" and accusing Obama of speaking out earlier on this issue than he did the underwear bomber--well, you realize the level of hatred on the far right.
This is a nice bookend to the Harry Reid comment thread, actually. WIV pointed out the power of words and also the constant mantra of hiding behind "political correctness." I have always hated that phrase, I guess, because I have distrusted it. It was not "politically incorrect" for Trent Lott to lament the end of segregation. It was racist. What Reid did was, actually, politically incorrect, in that he pointed to the issue of skin color and speech patterns, and used a 1950s word for black people. This, I might add, from a conversation in that book that details how Reid was encouraging Obama to run for office and even to go against the vaunted Clinton machine. Bad choice of words, but the underlying meaning was not overtly racist.
And here we have Limbaugh and exactly what is wrong with the base of the Republican party. As TNC and others have noted, those in the far right don't hate racism, they hate it when they perceive that there is racism against whites (even when it isn't there). But they have no problem with racism against blacks. No problem suggesting to the white racists in the base that Obama is responding to this immense catastrophe simply because there are blacks in trouble, and black votes to woo. No problem expressing a complete lack of compassion for the thousands and thousands dead.
Unbelievable. And yet, I will wait to see if any elected Republicans will excoriate Rush in public and denounce his racism. I bet not.
This is a nice bookend to the Harry Reid comment thread, actually. WIV pointed out the power of words and also the constant mantra of hiding behind "political correctness." I have always hated that phrase, I guess, because I have distrusted it. It was not "politically incorrect" for Trent Lott to lament the end of segregation. It was racist. What Reid did was, actually, politically incorrect, in that he pointed to the issue of skin color and speech patterns, and used a 1950s word for black people. This, I might add, from a conversation in that book that details how Reid was encouraging Obama to run for office and even to go against the vaunted Clinton machine. Bad choice of words, but the underlying meaning was not overtly racist.
And here we have Limbaugh and exactly what is wrong with the base of the Republican party. As TNC and others have noted, those in the far right don't hate racism, they hate it when they perceive that there is racism against whites (even when it isn't there). But they have no problem with racism against blacks. No problem suggesting to the white racists in the base that Obama is responding to this immense catastrophe simply because there are blacks in trouble, and black votes to woo. No problem expressing a complete lack of compassion for the thousands and thousands dead.
Unbelievable. And yet, I will wait to see if any elected Republicans will excoriate Rush in public and denounce his racism. I bet not.
January 13, 2010
Pat Robertson responds to Haiti
And you won't believe it. Oh hell yes, you will. He says that Haiti made a pact with the devil to get freedom from the French, and that pact with the devil has cursed them since. This, according to the big giant head, is a true story.
H/t to Leighton for this story, and he notes the particular self-centered approach this kind of thing seems to elicit--as if this disaster in Haiti is somehow remotely about us. For Robertson is it affirming that we are better because we didn't make a pact with the devil. For others, it is, in the back of the reptilian part of their brain, proof that those poor Haitians have somehow deserved this fate. It hasn't been about colonialism, or race relations, or global economics. It is about their spirituality v. ours.
I hope we can all find some way to help the Haitians today. It is not easy to do, when we live as far away as we do. Perhaps starting by donating to one of those excellent organizations that is doing the hard work. It isn't much, but it is something.
Donate | Doctors Without Borders
Donate — Oxfam America
H/t to Leighton for this story, and he notes the particular self-centered approach this kind of thing seems to elicit--as if this disaster in Haiti is somehow remotely about us. For Robertson is it affirming that we are better because we didn't make a pact with the devil. For others, it is, in the back of the reptilian part of their brain, proof that those poor Haitians have somehow deserved this fate. It hasn't been about colonialism, or race relations, or global economics. It is about their spirituality v. ours.
I hope we can all find some way to help the Haitians today. It is not easy to do, when we live as far away as we do. Perhaps starting by donating to one of those excellent organizations that is doing the hard work. It isn't much, but it is something.
Donate | Doctors Without Borders
Donate — Oxfam America
January 12, 2010
An obvious point about terrorism
That unfortunately, most in Washington, and everyone in the Republican ranks of Congress seem to not understand. Terrorists wants us to freak out:
Instead, Republicans (especially, but not exclusively) decide to respond to terrorism by screaming bloody murder that we are "all going to die." Which is exactly what the terrorist wants, right? Reminds me of the Republican freak-out over moving Gitmo detainees to American jails. Listening to them, you would think these guys are 7 feet tall with super-powers.
When we lose our values, or our minds in response to terrorism, they win. That seems rather obvious, but not to those wanting to make political hay.
"At least one person in the United States, Barack Obama, seemed to recognize that the objective of terrorism is to promote terror and sought to defuse that effort by handling the threat with the proportionality and common sense that has long been missing from U.S. counterterrorism strategy."
Instead, Republicans (especially, but not exclusively) decide to respond to terrorism by screaming bloody murder that we are "all going to die." Which is exactly what the terrorist wants, right? Reminds me of the Republican freak-out over moving Gitmo detainees to American jails. Listening to them, you would think these guys are 7 feet tall with super-powers.
When we lose our values, or our minds in response to terrorism, they win. That seems rather obvious, but not to those wanting to make political hay.
On Harry Reid--and one on small government
As just about everyone knows by now, the new book on the 2008 campaign includes a quote of Harry Reid commenting on Obama's chances, which, he thought were favorable because Obama is both light skinned and doesn't use a "Negro dialect." Predictably, the right wing has erupted with anger. How dare, they argue, the Democrats allow Reid to hold his seat after they hounded poor Senator Trent Lott out of office.
Personally, I find Reid's language cringe-inducing, and am glad to see him apologize for using 1950s era language to describe then candidate Obama. But the comparison to Lott is about as ridiculous as it gets. One commented on the issues of skin color in American politics as well as the issues surrounding what is called "Black english" in some circles, while the other expressed deep nostalgia for segregation. The same? I don't think so.
TNC weighs in here, and Serwer here. For a bit of context, TNC notes that the guy who lost to Michael Steele for RNC chair continues to play golf at a segregated club.
And one other note, caught by the capable people at The American Prospect which taps into what I think is the biggest problem for the anti-government crowd--selectivity and self interest. Turns out that even the Tea Party people often defend government largesse when it is in their economic self-interest.
Sigh.
Personally, I find Reid's language cringe-inducing, and am glad to see him apologize for using 1950s era language to describe then candidate Obama. But the comparison to Lott is about as ridiculous as it gets. One commented on the issues of skin color in American politics as well as the issues surrounding what is called "Black english" in some circles, while the other expressed deep nostalgia for segregation. The same? I don't think so.
TNC weighs in here, and Serwer here. For a bit of context, TNC notes that the guy who lost to Michael Steele for RNC chair continues to play golf at a segregated club.
And one other note, caught by the capable people at The American Prospect which taps into what I think is the biggest problem for the anti-government crowd--selectivity and self interest. Turns out that even the Tea Party people often defend government largesse when it is in their economic self-interest.
.. As the Messenger reported, [ex-GM employee Joan] Fabiano, like most tea partiers, is opposed to the government bailouts of banks and the so-called "out of control spending" in D.C.. But when it comes to General Motors and Chrysler -- two companies bought out by the government in the depths of the economic downturn -- Fabiano said the protest could hurt the business climate in the one of the worst states for unemployment in the country.Reminds me of the Town Hall criers saying things like "keep your government out of my Medicare."
Sigh.
More on morality--updated
I have been mulling over that NAE poll from the other day. I think Leighton hit the nail when he noted that for the conservative evangelicals, the problem is external to them--all those non-evangelicals who don't listen to the Word of God and understand the absolute truth. Hence the concern that moral relativism is one of the major moral issues facing the nation.
Sully is watching the Alabama governor's race and the amount of fundamentalist angst in that race is amazing. One candidate waffled on the entire literal truth of the Bible and was jumped by his opponents. Alabama has one of the most punitive and ridiculous tax systems in the country, but the big concern is someone who reads the bible literally and absolutely.
SOF and I talked about this over coffee this morning, as we have numerous times over the last decade. I have argued that the difference is between a more Catholic Seven Deadly Sins and the evangelical obsession with the Ten Commandments. The deadly sins are internal and part of everyone. The 10Cs, for many people, are those sins that other people do. After all, "I don't murder, steal, or lie (mostly). I attend church on Sundays (right before the football game) and never take the Lord's name in vain (unless that doesn't mean swear)." That, I think, explains the obsession with Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandment statue, and every other fundy effort to have those posted in public places. "We aren't worried about our morality. We are worried about yours."
Update: I forgot the central point of our conversation this morning. SOF made the very critical point that Jesus himself was a caution on that mentality, as witnessed by his discussion during the Sermon on the Mount:
The NAE says that "moral relativism" is one of the top three moral problems facing America, yet I have to believe that those answering the poll didn't think it was their own. Having heard about this most of my adult life, I know that moral relativism refers to liberals and their morality. It most certainly does not apply to those who cheered Bush's torture policy, without realizing they were arguing that torture was ok in this situation because of who we fight. Moral relativism. Bush's arrogance was fine because he was right, and he was listening to God. Obama's arrogance is wrong because he is a liberal.
Need more? How about the Scott Roeder trial. The man who walked into a church and gunned an abortion doctor down in fucking church has received permission from the judge to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born. Thou shall not kill, but it is ok when you have a good reason.
The problem isn't our morality. It is all those unchurched and unsaved souls out there who are the problem.
Yeah.
Sully is watching the Alabama governor's race and the amount of fundamentalist angst in that race is amazing. One candidate waffled on the entire literal truth of the Bible and was jumped by his opponents. Alabama has one of the most punitive and ridiculous tax systems in the country, but the big concern is someone who reads the bible literally and absolutely.
SOF and I talked about this over coffee this morning, as we have numerous times over the last decade. I have argued that the difference is between a more Catholic Seven Deadly Sins and the evangelical obsession with the Ten Commandments. The deadly sins are internal and part of everyone. The 10Cs, for many people, are those sins that other people do. After all, "I don't murder, steal, or lie (mostly). I attend church on Sundays (right before the football game) and never take the Lord's name in vain (unless that doesn't mean swear)." That, I think, explains the obsession with Judge Roy Moore's Ten Commandment statue, and every other fundy effort to have those posted in public places. "We aren't worried about our morality. We are worried about yours."
Update: I forgot the central point of our conversation this morning. SOF made the very critical point that Jesus himself was a caution on that mentality, as witnessed by his discussion during the Sermon on the Mount:
"21'You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment."It seems that Jesus was pretty concerned with the sins that all men do, and less impressed with those pointing fingers at others.
The NAE says that "moral relativism" is one of the top three moral problems facing America, yet I have to believe that those answering the poll didn't think it was their own. Having heard about this most of my adult life, I know that moral relativism refers to liberals and their morality. It most certainly does not apply to those who cheered Bush's torture policy, without realizing they were arguing that torture was ok in this situation because of who we fight. Moral relativism. Bush's arrogance was fine because he was right, and he was listening to God. Obama's arrogance is wrong because he is a liberal.
Need more? How about the Scott Roeder trial. The man who walked into a church and gunned an abortion doctor down in fucking church has received permission from the judge to argue that he believed, however mistakenly, that killing Dr. Tiller was justified because it would save the pre-born. Thou shall not kill, but it is ok when you have a good reason.
The problem isn't our morality. It is all those unchurched and unsaved souls out there who are the problem.
Yeah.
January 11, 2010
David Frum reviews Steele's book
Steele’s 12-Step Plan for Self-Destruction. Includes parroting Sarah Palin on bureaucrats and your health, and cheering the Survivor approach to moderates in the party (get rid of them).
The far right wing is still driving this party. Part of me cheers that because I think that will help the Democrats win. But most of me laments the continued insanity of a major party in a two-party system. Our Republic works better with engaged, and intelligent disagreement. The Dems let us down on that all the time, but the Republicans now give us Tea Parties and Sarah Palin. And now John McCain accusing the President of purposefully bankrupting America. Or Liz Cheney cheering on torture.
Surely the GOP can do better than this?
The far right wing is still driving this party. Part of me cheers that because I think that will help the Democrats win. But most of me laments the continued insanity of a major party in a two-party system. Our Republic works better with engaged, and intelligent disagreement. The Dems let us down on that all the time, but the Republicans now give us Tea Parties and Sarah Palin. And now John McCain accusing the President of purposefully bankrupting America. Or Liz Cheney cheering on torture.
Surely the GOP can do better than this?
More proof that McCain would have been a colossal mistake
Turns out that Obama has more problems on his Israeli policy than just dealing with a right wing leader like Netanyahu. Turns out that two Senators from his own country (McCain and Lieberman) traveled to Israel and backed Netanyahu and undermined Obama.
Lieberman has long been a horses ass. And hell, so has McCain, when it comes right down to it. But this seems like more of the sharp right turn from McCain to hold onto his seat. And this is Israel, where the right wing will support just about anything. But it also seems that there is no limit to the kinds of anti-American activity that only conservatives get to do.
I am reminded that this action will get much support from the conservative evangelical community. Just after we learned that moral relativism is a huge problem.
Sigh.
Lieberman has long been a horses ass. And hell, so has McCain, when it comes right down to it. But this seems like more of the sharp right turn from McCain to hold onto his seat. And this is Israel, where the right wing will support just about anything. But it also seems that there is no limit to the kinds of anti-American activity that only conservatives get to do.
I am reminded that this action will get much support from the conservative evangelical community. Just after we learned that moral relativism is a huge problem.
Sigh.
January 10, 2010
Evangelicals and Torture revisited
And this is rather stunning. Via slacktivist, I read of the National Association of Evangelicals'year-end survey on the top moral issues facing America. No one will be surprised to read that abortion made the top moral outrage, but the other two are really ironic, yet clear that the evangelicals are completely irony impaired.
Number 3 is "misstreatment of others" which includes "our blindness and silence to injustices here and around the world. Social ills like poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, human trafficking, and so many other..." Kudos to evangelicals (seriously) for mentioning poverty and malnutrition, as well as homelessness. I am reminded that their favorite President BW (before W), Ronald Reagan dismissed the homeless in the 1980s as being mentally ill. I will hope that these evangelicals chided President Reagan, but I doubt it.
No, the irony is that "misstreatment of others" does not appear to include torture. And that is highlighted by moral issue number 2: moral relativism. When I read that I had to close my mouth manually. Moral relativism? You mean like deciding that something is ok because the other people are worse? Or deciding that torture is acceptable for us because we are in a vicious fight with people lacking morals or Christ?
I just searched the NAE website for the word torture. "Total: 0 results found."
Sigh
Number 3 is "misstreatment of others" which includes "our blindness and silence to injustices here and around the world. Social ills like poverty, malnutrition, homelessness, human trafficking, and so many other..." Kudos to evangelicals (seriously) for mentioning poverty and malnutrition, as well as homelessness. I am reminded that their favorite President BW (before W), Ronald Reagan dismissed the homeless in the 1980s as being mentally ill. I will hope that these evangelicals chided President Reagan, but I doubt it.
No, the irony is that "misstreatment of others" does not appear to include torture. And that is highlighted by moral issue number 2: moral relativism. When I read that I had to close my mouth manually. Moral relativism? You mean like deciding that something is ok because the other people are worse? Or deciding that torture is acceptable for us because we are in a vicious fight with people lacking morals or Christ?
I just searched the NAE website for the word torture. "Total: 0 results found."
Sigh
Speaking of John McCain, here he is sounding like a right wing troll
John McCain, facing a strong primary challenge, has turned right and is now "accusing President Obama of ‘leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America'."
That's right. The guy who named Sarah Palin as his Veep, is accusing the sitting President of purposefully trying to ruin America. It is amazing what latitude conservatives get. And it is absolutely disgusting how ruthless they are in seeking their goals.
Shame on you, John. Shame. Heh. Who am I kidding. The guy who still defends choosing a moron as his Veep has no shame.
That's right. The guy who named Sarah Palin as his Veep, is accusing the sitting President of purposefully trying to ruin America. It is amazing what latitude conservatives get. And it is absolutely disgusting how ruthless they are in seeking their goals.
Shame on you, John. Shame. Heh. Who am I kidding. The guy who still defends choosing a moron as his Veep has no shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)