05.15.12
Posted in ALL, Election 2012, Media, Mitt Romney, Religion
at 1:45 pm
What if President Obama or Governor Romney gave a commencement speech at some heartland university and claimed that the nation he wants to be President of rests not on the U.S. Constitution but on a “tradition” of Greek mythology or the philosophy of Carl Jung?
Reporters and pundits would go wild. But a candidate demotes the Constitution beneath “Judeo-Christianity” as the foundation of the nation – as Mitt Romney did on Saturday at Liberty University (full text here) – and the supposedly atheist-liberal media elite hardly notice. Instead we get pre-fabricated headlines like “Romney Woos Evangelicals…”
(By the way, why do writers see politicians as “wooing” voters? Wooing would be Mitt Romney sharing a caffeine-free diet Coke with his future wife, Ann, while reading her the Smiths (Adam Smith and Joseph Smith). Displays of religious submission before an entire political party is better known as pandering).
“The founders did not say, ‘Congress shall favor no religion, but we’d still like to give a non-binding shout out to Judeo-Christianity!’”
Anyway, yes, we’ve heard politicians promote Judeo-Christianity as the basis of our system so often now that reporters hardly notice. But it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the “genius of the American system” that the same politicians like to salute.
Ten seconds of U.S. History 101: The founders declared independence from the king of England and later created a constitution that gave no power to any king or queen – or God or gods – putting ultimate power, instead, in the hands of the people. That some of the founders were religious (or “deists,” more accurately) makes it all the more significant that they deliberately vested zero power or authority in God or any church.
Sure, Romney’s speech paid lip service to the Constitution, but only the First Amendment part about religious freedom, and mainly as an excuse to slam the left for opposing that freedom, a particularly cynical accusation since religious freedom is one thing on which the right and the left do agree.
Oh and about that line. The authors wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” They didn’t say, “Congress shall put no religion above Judeo-Christianity.” They didn’t even say, “Congress shall favor no religion, and we mean it, but we’d still like to give a non-binding shout out to Judeo-Christianity!” They essentially said the state can neither promote religion nor suppress it.
And to those who do believe Judeo-Christianity is the foundation of this country – isn’t it more than a little odd that the founding fathers didn’t even mention God in the founding document? (Nowhere to be found!) The Declaration of Independence does mention a “Creator” and “Nature’s God,” but that document is mostly about men freeing themselves from the tyranny of King George III, and it’s the Constitution – not the Declaration – on which the entire government rests.
(And the founders certainly didn’t mention any particular religion, or the hyphenated rainbow term, “Judeo-Christianity,” which conveniently draws lines which include Mitt Romney and his Abrahamic Mormonism but exclude the Abrahamic Islam of some 15,000 U.S. military servicemembers.)
The increasing insistence of the right that Americans accept this upside-down version of American history is at best dumb and at worst preparing the ground for the passage of more and more rules based on religious texts rather than democratic law. Mitt Romney may just be a willing vessel for this message, delivering it as the price to pay for Republican turnout on election day, but it’s the people who will pay for it, and those who came before us.
The genius of the U.S. system, nearly 223 years old now, is that it gave no authority to gods, kings, or anyone claiming to rule on their behalf, granting it instead to “We, the people.” Every schoolkid learns this in history class and grows to appreciate it. Unfortunately, any of them who watch election coverage with their parents at the dinner table will see the Republican candidate distort that history over and over.
The president swears an oath to the Constitution, not the Bible, and any schoolkid would be happy to explain it for Romney again.
Permalink
05.11.12
Posted in ALL, Economy, Government
at 11:41 am
Remember when the debt ceiling talks broke down and both parties agreed to automatic spending cuts, with half coming from the Pentagon and half coming from other domestic spending? Ahh, those were the days! Well, Republicans hope you’ve forgotten, because they’re now “revising” their promise.
As if the poor weren’t shouldering enough of the burden of spending cuts, the G.O.P. now wants them carry much more of the load so that the truly needy can make ends meet – by which they mean defense contractors.
Their new proposal would see that the Pentagon’s budget – the largest remaining chunk of federal spending that has yet to be trimmed of waste and fat – take not 50% of the cuts, but 0%. (Actually, negative-something percent – they want to increase its bloated budget by $8 billion.)
“Nobody better lay a finger on my obsolete F-35 fighter jet!”
What they do want to cut are safety-net services for the poor, elderly, disabled, and at-risk youth (the Social Services Block Grant), and other domestic programs like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. At the same time they’re insisting that the obvious areas for deficit reduction not be touched – Pentagon pork, tax loopholes for oil companies, the historically low tax rates on the rich, massive farm subsidies. Nobody better lay a finger on my obsolete F-35 fighter jet!
About that Social Services Block Grant. It’s not pork. It’s not fat. And it’s not even 1% of what the House Republicans want to cut. So cutting that $1.7 billion while increasing Pentagon spending by $8 billion seems not only fiscally counter-productive but downright spiteful. Here are the categories of services their proposal would eliminate:
They include things like protective services for children, Meals on Wheels for the housebound elderly, education and training to help the needy help themselves. This highly magnified zoom-in represents a tiny slice of everything the Republicans want to cut, but to those on the edge of destitution, it’s everything.
Thankfully, the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate, and will not take up the Republicans’ proposal. But it’s a clear insight into their priorities and a dire warning of what’s to come should they gain more power in November’s election.
Permalink
04.25.12
Posted in ALL, Foreign Policy, Media
at 12:43 pm
The re-education of Florida Marlins manager Ozzie Guillen is nearing completion. After uttering an unauthorized statement about Fidel Castro a couple of weeks ago, the formerly outspoken sports team manager has progressed through the stages of public shaming, ownership, confession, self-censorship, and repentance. All that’s missing was the show trial; all that’s left is the loyalty test.
Known for saying a lot of crazy stuff about a lot of different things, Guillen told Time magazine, alongside a heap of other provocations, “I love Fidel Castro … I respect Fidel Castro. You know why? A lot of people have wanted to kill Fidel Castro for the last 60 years, but that motherf**ker is still here.”
He was suspended from his job, and like a communist party member who failed to toe the line, his career and livelihood became threatened.
That alone is sad, but the submission and self-renouncement in his words is sadder still. “I put myself on probation, me, nobody else,” Guillen said. “Probation about growing up and being better…”
“The message is clear: you can say whatever you like in America, but you’d better not.”
Of course, two weeks is a short time to complete a real political re-education, but no one truly cares about Guillen’s beliefs; what upset the Cuban-American community is his First Amendment expression and the fact that it doesn’t contain the hatred they feel for Castro. Their pressure led to his team suspending him for five games, but Cuban-American activists will be soothed only when the media have beamed Guillen’s self-flagellation to every corner of the land and all have received the message: you can say whatever you like in America, but you’d better not.
As Bill Maher put it on his TV show, “Castro is a communist, and if you say something communists don’t like, they take away your job and send you to a re-education camp until you come out with the one approved opinion. And we wouldn’t want to have that happen here in America!”
(It seems obvious but necessary to note here that Guillen did not endorse Castro’s policies anyway, but rather admired his resilience in the face of repeated attempts to overthrow and assassinate him.)
And let’s not forget, no one should be looking to the manager of a baseball team for pronouncements on foreign affairs anyway, any more than people seek assessments of a pitcher’s throwing arm from the Secretary of State. Whether you think Guillen’s opinion is misinformed or not, what’s truly stupid is getting offended by the offhand remarks of a baseball player.
And demanding an apology. In a sorely-needed and long overdue piece, Please Stop Apologizing, which ran in the New York Times before this latest teapot tempest, the same Bill Maher asks, “When did we get it in our heads that we have the right to never hear anything we don’t like?”
This faux scandal hasn’t sparked a debate about the most effective ways of improving life for Cubans given the failure of the embargo to do much more than keep the Castros in power. And therein lies the hypocrisy in the Cuban-American community’s rhetoric: they rightly bemoan the oppression of Cubans but will not tolerate free expression here, nor entertain an open debate about how to lift the oppression of Cubans. Their hatred of Castro precludes their consideration of policies that might deliver sooner to Castro’s people the same freedoms they themselves enjoy on this side of the Straits of Florida.
Lastly, I return to Maher for a little perspective. We should care about Cuban dictators, but why don’t we ever get riled up about the others? “There are worse dictators in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Equatorial Guinea and Turkmenistan. And those are just our friends.”
Permalink
04.17.12
Posted in ALL, Barack Obama, Economy, Election 2012, Satire
at 8:51 pm
The hot topic in Washington today is the so-called Buffett Rule, an Obama-backed bill designed to end the loophole which allows many rich people to pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. While supported by 70% of Americans, the bill was just blocked in the Senate by the G.O.P.
Political Relief talked with one prominent opponent whose objections to the Buffett Rule are reflected by many Capitol Hill Republicans. Thomas Sneerny is a self-described “Self-Wealth Manager” and spokesman for the lobbying group, No Taxation Without Preferential Consideration.
Thomas Sneerny: Let me start by saying, it’s very cynical of the Democrats to bring up the Buffett Rule. They know it won’t make much difference to the deficit, it’s just election-year politics.
Political Relief: So why is your party so motivated to stop it?
TS: We need to draw a line in the sand. The GSA was just caught throwing an $800,000 conference in Vegas, and the president wants to lecture us about fiscal responsibility? Plus, it’s just irresponsible to bring up legislation that has no chance of passing.
“Do you know how many $800,000 conferences it would take to match the $47 billion the Buffett Rule would save?”
“I was told there would be no math in this interview. Ok, what, two? Three? This sounds like a gotcha question.”
PR: What’s stopping it from passing?
TS: Well, … us. But you can’t place the blame for that on us.
PR: Uhhhhm…
TS: So bringing this bill up is just, just overtly political. Which, you know, in an election year, by a political party — just seems out of the ordinary to me. A highly political act.
PR: But filibustering it isn’t?
TS: No. 70% of Americans support the Buffet rule, so our opposition to it is highly unpopular. It’s not poll-driven.
PR: I see. So you’re saying it’s actually more noble to serve a group that has more money and fewer votes than it is to serve the majority of Americans?
TS: Well, but when you put it like that it sounds, well, elitist. We support the current “unfair system” (as you call it) out of principle.
PR: Ok, let’s talk about that. What exactly is the principle you’re defending here?
TS: Democrats don’t understand this, but you don’t tax what you want to encourage. You don’t want to punish people for their hard work. We’re trying to get this economy moving, trying to get people working again.
PR: But it’s work that’s currently taxed more than unearned income like dividends that come to you because of the work that other people have done. Are you saying that if you had to pay the same tax on those dividends as someone who worked for a living, you’d quit your “job-creating” day-trading and go earn a paycheck?
TS: Of course not, that would be the same tax rate for more work.
PR: Exactly.
TS: Look, the bottom line is, we need to get this economy moving and get the deficit down. But taxing my investment profits as much as the labor of secretaries, engineers, politicians and so forth would just … you know. Well look, it’s not going to solve the deficit anyway, is it? It would only raise about $50 billion, which is a drop in the–
PR: What do you mean “only” $50 billion? Sure, it would take a lot more to eliminate the deficit, but how else are you going to start–
TS: Typical liberal, missing the forest for the trees. You won’t let the wealthy pay a lower rate than their assistants, but you allow waste, fraud, and abuse in government to explode the deficit. As we speak, the House is investigating the General Services Administration for blowing $800,000 in taxpayer funds on a sushi-showered conference in Las Vegas.
PR: $800 million?
TS: No, I said $800 thousand. Typical of you tax-and-spend Democrats to be so flippant about $800 grand.
PR: That’s a lot of money, but it’s being investigated, guilty people have already been fired, and — well, do you know how many $800,000 conferences it would take to match the $47 billion the Buffett Rule would save?
TS: I was told there would be no math in this interview. Ok, what, two? Three? This sounds like a gotcha question.
PR: It would take 58,750 of those $800,000 conferences. How can you minimize a figure like $47 billion while simultaneously–
TS: Look, you can throw around big words and fancy numbers all you want. The bottom line is, the G.O.P. will not be swayed by popular appeals to be fair or democratic. And if the Democrats insist on turning this political matter into a political issue and make the G.O.P. pay a political price for it — well, that would be unfair and un-democratic.
Permalink