Phony-catholic outrage week!

Rawr. Ok, after watching this story brew all week, and trying (and failing) to post something relevant about it that hadn’t already been done, I put out a diary today on DKos about the Peoria bishop who compared Obama to Hitler.

Although I expect it to go nowhere, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has filed a formal complaint with the IRS about the sermon on the entirely reasonable grounds that it violated the church’s tax-exempt status to engage in such overt political advocacy. And the rule does include speaking out in opposition to a candidate, so it’s not as if they had to endorse Romney to violate the rule.

But let’s face it, in a two-party system, saying ‘don’t vote for this guy’ is equivalent to ‘vote for the other guy’.

Obama being the centrist uniter type though, I expect he’ll get the IRS to either do nothing or do it so slowly, quietly and ineffectually that it may as well be pointless. I just don’t see him taking on the conservative clergy in the RCC, even if it seems like he should. It’s not like all catholics blindly obey these jerks in funny hats and everything they say to do.

Even if it is the good fight, though, he’s probably better off letting organizations like the AU do battle with the right wing churchfolk. Someone has to do it, though.

P.S. ‘phony catholic’ is in reference to these right wing blowhards who wouldn’t know from Jesus if he showed up in front of them. It’s a shame that the bible is so easy to twist to serve conservative interests, but you know what they say…the poor you will always have with you.

Quick edit: this one might get read, someone changed it to ‘Recommended’ on DKos. The latest episode in the continuing saga of I have no idea how diaries make the Rec List.

An amusing coincidence

As a result of some ‘meta’ argument on Daily Kos today, I was inspired to write this, in which I found an odd correspondence between the President and Jesus. Ack! Blasphemy!

I don’t know how serious it really is. I considered tagging it ‘snark’. But the problem of evil (of a sort) does seem analogous to my current dilemma of how to explain what the president is doing.

It’s becoming a miniseries

My latest diatribe on Mark Critz, D-PA. It may seem like I’m picking on him…and I am! While I live in Arizona now, southwestern Pennsylvania is where I’m from, and I cannot abide this twit without at least speaking up about it. I could just as easily single out any of the Democratic cosponsors, they may well have more extensive anti-choice records.

I know they like to call it ‘pro-life,’ but I have trouble reconciling that with the consequences of the bills they promote — raped women less able to seek justice, pregnant women dying for lack of emergency care…that sort of thing.

Bold political…calculation

While Gabrielle Giffords has moved on to her rehab in Houston, the ongoing political fallout from the shooting has been interesting to observe. Not so much the fallacious, hypocritical counterattacks from the right wing — that’s predictable, even if it makes no sense. More interesting is the blessed silence from the Obama administration when it comes to making change from this tragedy.

As president, Obama has placed a silencer on his past backing of gun control. For instance, as a presidential candidate Obama called for reinstating the ban on assault weapons. Though Attorney General Eric Holder early in the Obama administration cited the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban as an administration priority, the White House has not pursued that goal, and Obama has side-stepped the matter when questioned about it. At a press conference last year with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama declined to even discuss reviving this ban. The message has been clear: Obama may think gun regulation is good policy but he also has concluded taking any action that could enrage gun owners and the gun lobby is lousy politics.

That Obama can make this calculation and make the perceived shrewd political move doesn’t surprise me. At this point, why should it? If he ever cared about keeping his promises, he has long since stopped caring about that. But it’s sad to consider that even after something like this happens, the gun lobby does not care either. They demand unquestioning, complete support for every gun and bullet and piece of hardware they can sell to the American people. It doesn’t matter if we kill each other, or if nine-year-olds get gunned down in the crossfire.

So, gun owners and the NRA can’t be swayed from their mania. Wonderful. And all manner of innocent blood, not to mention some of Gabby’s brains, are on their hands. No problem. For them. No question, we must have our machineguns, and conversion kits for what masquerade as semi-automatics, and high capacity magazines, the better to slaughter ourselves with.

What a despicable country we live in.

Jack Conway, you suck

I’ve been stewing over this one for a couple days; it took a letter-writer to NPR to firm up my resolution to respond to this fellow.

Jack Conway is a Democrat running for Senator in Kentucky. At this point, normally it would be simple enough for me. Democrat? Running against Rand Paul, that sonuvalibertarian? There is nothing about the typical political issues that would make me too worried about voting for Conway, were I in Kentucky (there but for the grace of Dawk go I).

And then, to score some cheap points via religion, Conway cut loose with this issue, blasting Rand Paul for having mocked Christianity in his bong-smoking youth. He has a section of his website devoted to the topic, now.

Be careful what you do in college, because you never know when you’ll run for Senate. It’s the kind of warning that parents give their kids all the time, but one that Rand Paul may not have taken to heart, considering recent reports that the Kentucky GOP Senate candidate’s college secret society was actually one that was banished from campus because of it’s anti-Christian views.’

Conway has made some extremely lame attempts to justify this as judging actions, not crafting a religious test.

I’m not questioning his faith, Robert. I’m questioning his actions. Rand Paul joined a group when he was in college. And this group had been banned by the president of Baylor (University) because it, quote, made fun of Christianity and Christ.

And why would you go and join a group that purposely known for mocking people of faith? I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to mock people of faith. I don’t think it’s ever appropriate to tie a woman up and ask her to kneel down and worship a false idol.

And you know, Rand Paul has not denied these charges. These stories have been printed in six very reputable media outlets. And when asked questions about them he refuses to answer.

Note how Conway shifts the rhetoric from ‘mocking Christianity’ to ‘mocking people of faith’. Note the video’s language about a ‘false idol’. This is language Conway repeatedly invoked during their last debate, as well. I can’t dismiss this as some singular, boneheaded remark. (the page linked above contains a video sample of Conway’s remarks) This Democrat played the faith card to swing some sympathy votes his way.

Kneeling before a false god. Reveling in sacrilege. Mocking Christianity and Christ. These are Jack Conway’s statements about Rand Paul. This is attacking someone for having the temerity to question or mock our society’s dominant religion. And make no mistake — Conway is using that to play his little dominance game, who’s the better xian. At least I know Rand Paul can’t use this counter against Conway; he’s playing who’s the better xian too. He couldn’t possibly defend mocking xianity. Heaven forbid.

I’m glad I’m not in a position to have to vote for either one of these people…and hopefully, Jack Conway will advance no further, and not put me in a position to have to think about it. I’m not sure I could overlook this, hold my nose and vote on the issues. This embrace of xian discrimination against the non-believer is disgusting. It is an attack against atheism, it is an attack against me. My voice may be irrelevant, but I will not be silent about it.

Democratic scare tactics

It’s a bit out of character for me to go on ranting politically and not tackle some WoW-related or skeptical topic. Have to get some in later. But I have been listening to an interview on the Diane Rehm show today with David Plouffe, who managed the Obama presidential campaign in 2008. And it has seemingly crystallized a tactic that, sadly, I think Democrats are wise to employ. It is the politics of fear.

Fear after 9/11 led the American people to hand Dubya a political blank check. We went to war, our civil liberties got trashed, our privacy invaded, our government’s budget sank into debt, our economy bubbled and popped; and by and large, no one cared, no one checked out the man behind the curtain. We’re scared, we’re mad, let’s go kill somebody.

Not that Obama has really stopped this. He’s managed to accomplish a good deal, and they talk about keeping us out of a new great depression, and they’re probably right. But our rights, our country’s pride of purpose remain trashed, and the fleecing of the middle class continues. I was reminded of it this morning in a commercial starring (ex-)Senator Fred hawking reverse mortgages, proudly touting government insurance of mortgages designed, I suppose, to finish taking away the property and inheritance of the middle class, and to allow baby boomers to literally take it with them.

Makes one wonder who they think will buy all these houses once they’ve thoroughly destroyed the middle class. But that’s the corporate way. Profits today, don’t think about tomorrow.

Of course, Mother Jones (linked above) also has some interesting articles on Goldline, Glenn Beck, and another form of fleecing of spooked Americans. I am perhaps a bit unsympathetic of the conservatives fleecing their own stupid flock, but they are. And I see vultures likewise in my own city, spamming cable TV with their eagerness to buy gold, silverware, and other valuables (on the cheap, quick, cash of course) as the morons who have some means buy gold and drive the price up. Interesting. Good Ole Tom’s is a Connecticut institution. I thought the premise of trustworthy old-timey Tucson folk was a sham.

Doh. I digress.

Anyway, the running theme of Plouffe’s interview was the standard bad vs. worse scenario, although he tries of course to paint the past two years in the best possible light — not easy considering the state of the economy. Easier by far (and more frequent) were his reminders of what the Republicans wish to do should they regain power. Roll it all back, do what they’ve been doing, more of the same. It’s scary. He actually used the word several times, scary. He wants his base to be scared of what the Republicans will do.

As we saw in 2001, fear is a great motivator, after all. It’s a pretty harsh judgment, though. While the right wing fears terrorists, or, say, brown people, it seems one Democratic strategy is to get its base — me — to fear Republicans (Republican Tea Party included). It’s a dispiriting point of comparison. What should scare us more, what did more damage to the country? The planes on 9/11 or the popped housing bubble? Terrorists or toxic assets? The only thing to fear is…the other side. Perhaps we’re right to. But it is sad to see politics come to this impasse.

So, hope and change. But also,

It’s either laugh, or cry

Just been one of those…weeks, in the political sphere. I don’t know what’s worse, watching Obama fail to be inspiring on his trips around the country, watching the Democrats bail on tax-cut votes, watching my grumpy old man senator McCain deny reality on don’t ask, don’t tell…ugh. What, does he think if he repeats the lie often enough, it becomes true?

…well, he is a Republican, so… (Sue will jab me for that)

It’s one thing if we see the Dems go down swinging, quite another to watch them try to lose. Are they trying? I can’t tell, but at times it looks that way.

Anyway, at least there are a few jokes now and then to get me through the weekend. Stephen Colbert testifying before Congress has got to be one of them.

Is it sillier for Colbert to appear and stick to his character through questioning by members of Congress? Or to be the sourpusses on the other end, trying not to grin as their points of view are so ably satirized? John Conyers, a Democrat, tried to kick him out, to shut him up! What a fool. Meanwhile, Republican Lamar Smith thanks Colbert for his unquestioning ‘support.’ One wonders if either of them got the joke.

And asked if he endorsed GOP policies, Colbert said, “I endorse all Republican policies without question,” prompting Smith to thank Colbert for his endorsement of the Republicans’ just-unveiled Pledge to America.

If members of Congress ever wonder just why it is Congress gets such low approval ratings…cripes. As if their nonstop bickering, backstabbing, and general incompetence at getting things done wasn’t enough. Can’t even take a joke.

Although, at times I think it’s for the best that they fight so much and get little done. They do less damage that way. The way things are going, we may expect a few more years of even less getting done…somehow.

On the ‘professional left’

A little snark-fest by Obama’s press secretary seems to be making the rounds today. And I suppose I should pay it the attention due to the press secretary mouthing off at the ‘professional left.’

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

Of those who complain that Obama caved to centrists on issues such as healthcare reform, Gibbs said: “They wouldn’t be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president.”

A bit of irony there, as I had the chance to vote for Kucinich in the primary back in ’08 and didn’t, instead voting for Obama over Clinton — the more meaningful vote at the time. For a moment I will consider taking my Obama magnet off the car. Whatever happens in November, my vote isn’t going to have much to do with it. Money could, but then I am poor. I could drop off the mailing list, but that’s more spite than anything substantial.

Gibbs didn’t name names as to which left-wing pundits he’d like to bitchslap. But it was interesting that Rachel Maddow’s name came up. Is it unfair to point out failure?

Just last week, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow described Obama political adviser David Axelrod as a “human pretzel” for his explanation of the administration’s position on gay marriage. Axelrod had explained that Obama opposes same-sex marriage but favors equal benefits for partners in gay relationships.

Mind you, this is the same lady who has spent time listing the Obama administration’s many accomplishments, chronicled the efforts of the right wing to diminish them and undermine his approval in the public sphere.

So, it seems the administration has already moved to offer some half-assed apologies and made some less than subtle comments to diminish the left itself. As if they weren’t already doing that with their policies. I doubt anything much will happen to the press secretary, and really, who cares? I guess they wish they could get us to march in lockstep like the right does with its base.

I guess it was summed up adequately on the Daily Kos, in that we got to see what could have been before the lobbyists and the conservatives like Lieberman and Nelson had their way with everything. Most of all, it was sad to watch how little the administration did to defend what could have been. I get the sense that Obama values the legislative process, having been a legislator not that long ago, and recalling how they were run roughshod by his predecessor. Perhaps he is cautious to the point of error.

If they wanted to alienate the left, though, just to make sure they lose and lose big in November, they’re doing a bang-up job of it.

Tax cuts. Always.

Just a little political rant before I go see Inception with Sue this evening. No WoW on a weeknight, zounds!

Well, I’ll probably come back and work the auction house for a few minutes before bed…anyway.

(Late night edit: I’d recommend Inception to anyone I know, a nice intricate psychological thriller with some strong and somewhat trippy action notes.)

So we’re hearing a lot of GOP noise about their beloved Bush-era tax cuts that are set to expire. Mind you, the Republicans did that, because otherwise the cost of the tax cuts would have been too obvious and they would have failed to become law. It’s a remarkable policy in how little sense it makes upon scrutiny; and remarkable in how it manages to survive despite that. I’ve heard all about the notion of ‘class warfare’…we always do. Here’s a bit from the Fox news crap, courtesy of Senator Fred (ex-senator Fred Thompson, who I remember more from The Hunt for Red October and Law & Order).

THOMPSON: Well, in the — in the first place, you know, every politician that ever run for office ought to be asked a simple question: how long — a person who worked for the government, should we work two days for the government or three days for the government? What answer should that be. A lot of people would be surprised at how long we work for the government.

They come up with nice-sounding rhetoric to back up their form of class warfare; it’s not as if the rich have much of a tendency to even pay these taxes, what with loopholes in the tax code, contributions to politicians and charities and such. We yammer on about income tax rates when a big chunk of the populace doesn’t pay out in income; they pay out in payroll taxes, which we never talk about. Don’t even touch that. Don’t even bring it up.

And in truth, we’d better not. But for some reason, the Democrats can’t come up with any spin for their argument. They just speak truth, as if truth really mattered in politics.

And then there’s the popular Republican canard that tax cuts pay for themselves. This snippet is from Marco Rubio, who is running with teabagger backing for a Senate seat from Florida.

“They will be paid for because they create economic growth, especially in the long-term,” he said. When Guthrie interjected that unemployment benefits act as a stimulus, he said, “Well I don’t think anyone can say that with a straight face.” “First of all, private sector growth is stimulus.” Rubio’s position puts him in the mainstream of Republican political thinking, that the Bush tax cuts pay for themselves while unemployment benefits should be paid for without adding to the debt.

This is one of those cases where the oft-repeated lie drowns out the obvious truth. No, they don’t pay for themselves. Bush was making the same noise back in 2006 when his struggling economy showed some signs of life; that is, before the bubble burst and the rich cashed in their chips.

Economists and budget analysts outside of the administration have explained that these claims are not supported by data or economic theory.[3] Now a Department of Treasury analysis presented in the Mid-Session Review itself confirms what outside experts have consistently said — tax cuts do not come remotely close to paying for themselves.[4]

Even using its rosiest projections of the budget, spending cuts to offset tax cuts, and the state of the economy, Bush’s own Treasury Department couldn’t bring the projected cost of his tax cuts down by more than 10%. That is to say…

Thus, even if the Treasury’s most optimistic assumptions are accepted (and the dynamic effect is assumed to happen much more quickly than even Treasury seems to assume), the cost of the tax cuts in 2016 — taking into account “dynamic” effects — would still be more than 90 percent of the cost of the tax cuts under the standard cost estimates.

…no free lunch. And this obvious truth can be made clear by a simple reductio ad absurdum. So, tax cuts pay for themselves. They stimulate the economy. They increase tax revenues. Does this mean that by reducing tax rates to zero, we raise revenue to infinity? Is that too obvious? How about keeping them at one percent? Surely the incredible stimulated economy would explode and we’d have all the revenue we’d ever need. Right?

No? What do you mean, there’s an actual tax rate we need to maintain? Any idea what it is? Show your math…

I can recall one prominent Republican, ever, who actually turned on this policy and advocated tax increases. Because there has never been a time — ever — that I can recall, where tax cuts weren’t the way to go. Are we prosperous, running surpluses? Cut taxes, give the money back to the people. Are we running deficits? Cut taxes, it’ll stimulate revenue. Is the economy good? Cut taxes, the gov’t is raking in cash. Is the economy bad? Cut taxes, we must help it. Are we at peace? Cut taxes, we don’t need all the military spending. Are we at war? Well, cut taxes anyway. One fellow I can recall who bucked this trend, and I remember what they did to him, too.

Yeah, they certainly stuck his head on a pike, now didn’t they. To the point that when he was endorsing McCain back in 2008 it was kind of a joke. They were spiteful enough to vote for Perot and give us two terms of Clinton! Not that McCain enthused them either, but then I think they wanted a Democrat to take over and make Americans take all the necessary medicine (and gain their ire for it). Clinton of course went through the same thing, but I have my doubts that Obama can turn it around like that. He’s too honest.

Anyway, I know about the whole ‘starve the beast’ mentality, but I see it as waging class warfare against the likes of me, even as they bark about class warfare every time they get it back. They lie and pretend it’s not what they’re doing. Of course, if it weren’t for the variety of folks voting against their own economic interests over social issues like guns, gays or god, the Republicans would never stand a chance.

A good segue into how Republicans have an interest in destroying our education system, so that stupid Americans can stab themselves in the back voting for the benefit of the rich. Or, how Republicans in power somehow manage to not do anything about their social issues, the better to keep their base fired up while they do accomplish the eternal preservation of wealth. But that’s another show.

No real point to this beyond the obvious; time will tell on whether or not the Democrats have the stones to do that which is obviously the right thing to do. I’m skeptical.

Obama, you fail!

As part of my ongoing vacillation back and forth re: the Obama presidency, this one came from Pharyngula. Evidently, CNN has reported a ban on filming the results of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, and that this ban is being backed by our government.

Another interested blogger PZ linked has compiled a series of photographs of the damage, mostly oiled/dead wildlife shots, on the off chance that the gov’t takes the next step and reclassifies them as top secret. As I voice my general disgust of this corporatist apologetic and coverup, I see no reason not to mirror PZ’s response and link to it.

To be fair, I took a day and watched the videos and slept on it before opening rhetorical fire on Obama. The counter-arguments about safety, security, and being able to take pictures with zoom lenses are technically valid. But the selective nature of this ban, knowing there are other spills with no such ban, makes it seem more like an effort to avoid publicity. This one, for example, you may not have even heard of; it came and went quickly. Here’s another, a slow leak that has been ongoing for 6 years now.

As for telephoto lenses, try using those to film cleanup workers or oil-mired animals inside buildings. Try finding oiled birds on shorelines with a pair of binoculars. Clearly, the reduced field of vision will make it harder, make it take longer. Some of this is outright banning some documentation; and some is intended to make journalists’ lives more difficult. And they’re not interested in making things worse for the cleanup effort. But instead of the gov’t giving journalists a reason to back off, now the journalists have to fight for the right to move in.

As for the troll at Pharyngula complaining that Americans only care about this disaster because it affects us, it’s not about who walks to work or recycles the most. It’s about BP’s corner-cutting on inspection and safety; it’s the preventable nature of this disaster that makes BP’s behavior reprehensible. There are consequences for using fossil fuels. Some disasters may be inevitable. This wasn’t one of them. This one is the result of greed.

I have my doubts that the administration would try to reclassify these photos that are already out there, since these have been available for long enough as it is, but then I didn’t think they would help BP to ban filming the disaster in the first place.

Typical that I was reminded of Kologarn, the old Ulduar boss that would yell “you fail!” as people died. Well, that and lolcats.