Boycott (Update)

A few things to add to my boycott list:

Lowes:  For pulling their ads from the tv show "All American Muslim".  I try not to buy anything from companies that support right-wing or Tea Party causes.

Menards:  The family supports Tea Party candidates.

Verizon:  My wife recently abandoned Verizon after many years and joined me at Credo Mobile when she found out that Verizon gave money to Tea Party candidates.

Alabama:  We have been snow-birding for several years on the Alabama Gulf Coast, but we are never going there again because of their racist immigration law.  We'll be looking in the nearby Florida panhandle instead.

These will be added to my list, which already includes:

The Golf Channel:  Can't I go anywhere to get away from Rush Limbaugh?

Amazon.com:  Until they decide to pay state sales tax like every other retailer.

Bad Religion Makes Bad Politics

One of the blogs I follow regularly (The Motley Cow) made reference to this article by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:  http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/06/my-take-jesus-was-a-free-marketer-not-an-occupier/.  I decided I wanted to blog a bit about it, too.

Perkins' astonishing assertion is that Jesus espoused free market economics.  (In another context Perkins once went further and claimed that Jesus was a supply-sider.)  It is astonishing partly because his description of the meaning of the parable is surprisingly shallow and superficial for one who claims to speak for Christians in a public way.  It is shocking that he believes that this parable is about economics.  The minas in the parable are not the "opportunity of life";  rather, they represent the unmerited faith that has been given to Christians.  The king's test, then, is that we are to not bury that faith in the ground but to let it shine and multiply in others, as the Spirit sees fit.  It has nothing to do with money.

Perkins seems to be saying that Jesus gave us this faith and ascended to heaven and now he wants us to strive to become Steve Jobs until he returns.  If that is what he sees as the central teaching of this parable, then it's back to Catechism class.  The parables in Scripture are not comic book stories or updated Aesop's fables.  Perkins correctly states that parables have "deeper spiritual meaning", and then proceeds to trivialize the parable and turn it into a silly earthly lesson.

Okay, Tony, we get it.  You don't like the Occupy movement.  That's your right as an American.  But to twist scripture to further your political agenda is a serious thing.  It's a false teaching.  In another part of the Bible, Jesus says to Peter, "Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.'"  Mr. Perkins has taken a parable of God and turned it into a thing of men.  Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles warn Christians to be vigilant for false teachings.  Just as Jesus refers to Satan when addressing a believer (Peter), most of the warnings are to be wary of false teachings from inside the church.  They are a greater danger than anything outside.  This misuse of scripture by Mr. Perkins to further his earthly agenda falls into that category.

More Banal Words and Phrases

Here are some additions to my list of banalities that appear in articles, columns, and opinion pieces.  These banalities are words or phrases that--if read in an article or column--cause me to stop, because their use causes the loss of all credibility for the writer.  They tend to be trite or overused or poorly defined, and are used when a writer is too lazy to actually present an argument. (Or, possibly because the writer knows that he or she has no argument.)

I posted a short list about a year ago.  For example, using the phrase "politically correct".  It has no well-defined meaning and is used as if it trumps all other arguments.  Any writer using it is not worthy of your time.

Well, here are a few additions:

• "Class Warfare"--is there a more tiresome phrase in current use among the right wingers?
• Using "Social Security" and "Medicare" in the same sentence.  These programs are hardly related and the problems they face (as well as the solutions) are far different from one another.  Lumping them together implies either deliberate misrepresentation or serious misunderstanding.  In either case, the reader shouldn't waste any more time.
• "Job Creators"--no elaboration needed. 

Random Thoughts

• Why would anyone care what S&P has to say?
• It looks like the Tea Party Congressmen love pork as much as anyone.  The hypocrites just change the definition for projects in their districts.
• As one who supported and voted for Obama, I wonder now whether things are any different or better than if Hillary had been elected.
• Obama should have ignored the Republican ParTea and invoked the 14th Amendment on the debt.  If he's going to suffer the blame anyway, he might as well do the right thing for the American people.  Someday he might stand up for the people who put him in the White House.  It hasn't happened yet.
• Someone once said that we haven't had a liberal president since Richard Nixon.  That appears to still be true.
• Paul Krugman's metaphor in yesteday's op-ed piece was right on.  He compared Republican economic theory to medieval bloodletters.  Bleed the patient and make him sicker.  Bleed the economy and make it worse.

Ron Johnson

I caught part of Senator Johnson's interview with Al Hunt on Bloomberg the other day.  Of course, it was full of a bunch of foolishness.  But one thing caught me in particular.  Hunt asked Johnson to explain how after the Clinton tax increases, there were 23 million jobs created;  and after the Bush tax cuts there were only 3 million jobs created.  After some gibberish to avoid answering the question he finally gave this answer:  all the jobs created during the Clinton years were really created by--drum roll please--you guessed it!!  Ronald Reagan...  It looked to me like it took all of Hunt's self-control to keep from busting out in laughter.  It was that ridiculous.  You can catch the transcript containing all of Sen. Johnson's brilliant insights here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-08/senator-johnson-says-u-s-can-avoid-default-transcript-.html

You folks from Wisconsin really elected a doozy.  (I only feel entitled to say it because I am a Wisconsin native.)

I am waiting for the next interview where we are likely to find out that Reagan is also is responsible for (1)  the allied victory in WW II;  (2)  man landing on the moon;  (3)  the polio vaccine; and (4)  [just fill in the blank, Ron].

More from the Conservative Whiners

Republicans and Conservatives like to portray themselves as tough and full of realism.  And indeed, the (un)Liberal media actually gives them a pass on this as if its undisputed fact.  But as usual, they are showing their true stripes. which is that they are a bunch of whiners.  Paul Ryan is all over the news now about how poor little him and his bogus budget ideas are being "mischaracterized".  Apparently he wants to present proposals but doesn't want anyone to actually look at them. It seems that he is not used to having his tender feelings hurt.  He is used to being coddled by the media.  It reminds me of 2008 when the Cantor and Boehner and the rest of the do-nothings had their feelings hurt by a speech that Nancy Pelosi gave, so they paid us all back by not supporting the bailout (which was needed because of their policies).  And this from the crew who stood in silence as their friends were spewing all sorts of real mischaracterizations about Obama's birthplace and Americanism.  The contrast between Obama's calm restraint and classiness in response to this Republican irresponsibility is quite striking when compared to the whining of Ryan and his fellow Republicans.  They call themselves the Young Lions but are really the Young Wimps.

Christian Life Resources and Politics (Part 8)

Once again Christian Life Resources (CLR) has chosen to misrepresent a legislative issue in order to promote its own right-wing political agenda.  (See the May 5 article on its website, "House Passes Historic Ban on Taxpayer Funding for Abortion".)   Among other things, the bill (H.R. 3) attempts to restrict things that are not direct funding of abortion.  For example, it appears to try to limit the tax deductibility of certain medical expenses as well as some tax credits.  The headline uses the term "taxpayer funding" very loosely and deceptively.  Under CLR's reasoning, taxpayer funds should not be used to build roads because women use them to get to an abortion clinic and that makes it taxpayer funding of abortion.

CLR should stop presenting deceptive words and half truths simply because it serves a "higher purpose". They should also stop binding the conscience by implying that God is on one side or the other of H.R. 3. 

Christian Life Resources and Politics (Part 7)

Christian Life Resources website has an article on April 14 entitled "Obama Cuts Women's Health Care, Funds Planned Parenthood".  Once again, CLR has adopted the Republican spin on a political and legislative issue.  In addition, the article contains a falsehood that I am sure they are aware of but still allowed to be printed.  Using a falsehood to promote a worthy cause is not worthy of CLR.

My purpose is not to defend Planned Parenthood.  Rather, I just want CLR to live up to standards worthy of a Christian organization (and one that claims affiliation with my church body).

• The article says that President Obama is "holding steadfast to the funding for the Planned Parenthood abortion business."  This statement is untrue.  It is against the law to use tax dollars for abortion.  To say otherwise is partaking in partisan Republican spin.
• Singling out a specific organization for defunding is very unusual.  One Michigan conservative Representative voted against the measure for that very reason.  I didn't see his name mentioned in the article.  Oh, I forgot...he's a Republican.
• Many worthwhile programs were cut, due in large part to the slash and burn mentality of the Republican majority in the House.  Yet the only politician presented in a negative light is President Obama.  Once again, CLR is happy to go out of its way to criticize the Democratic president without mentioning the Republicans that voted on the package.  If CLR wants the money restored for Community Health Centers, maybe an article should appear encouraging the House leadership to propose it.

Christian Life Resources claims no partisan affiliation.  But articles like this suggest that it relies on the Republican Party and the Republican blogosphere for its talking points.

Boycott

Here are a couple of "low-impact" boycotts I am going to try to follow for myself.

1. The Golf Channel.  I like watching the Golf Channel's coverage of the European and US tours.  The problem is that I constantly have to see commercials featuring Donald Trump and Rush Limbaugh.  Sheesh...isn't there anywhere I can go to hide from these guys?  Enough already.  I haven't watched for a few weeks now and I intend to keep it that way until those two guys are gone.
2. Amazon.com.   We have bought a fair amount of stuff from Amazon.  They have the internet business model down pat.  Prices and service are the best.  But their stance on collecting sales tax is no longer supportable.  They should be able to collect them like every other retailer.  It's part of doing business in this country and is not really a burdensome thing.  The excuses they give are phony.  So I intend to stop shopping there until they start paying sales tax like they should.

I know that neither the Golf Channel nor Amazon will care.  But it makes me feel better.

Ryan's Stale Ideas

Rep. Ryan's proposals are heralded as bold new initiatives, even by normally reasonable commentators like David Brooks.  His idea is essentially that the way to save America is to lower the standard of living of the poor, the middle class, and the elderly by widening the income disparity in the country even more than it already is.  This is not to say that his ideas might not carry the day, just that there is nothing bold or new about these theories. They've been around forever.  The idea that lower marginal tax rates for the wealthy produces more jobs and balances budgets has always been tenuous (if not outright untrue).  It's more a religious belief among these folks than something based on empirical evidence.

So puh-lease....Ryan may get his way, but let's not talk as if he has invented some new exciting idea. It's just more of the same stale right-wing stuff.

Governor Snyder's Tax Increase

Michigan's Governor Snyder has proposed a massive increase on retiree pension income here in Michigan.  From the outset I must disclose that I have a vested interest in this debate because we are Michigan retirees, so I admit that I am not unbiased in this debate.  Nevertheless, allow me to make a few observations:

• Gov. Snyder and the Republicans are claiming this is not really a tax increase, but simply the removal of a loophole.  Are you kidding?  Can you imagine what the Conservatives would have said if Granholm and the Democrats had made this proposal.  They would have called it the biggest tax increase in the history of Michigan.  I'm not saying that a rational case can't be made for the proposal.  But at least fess up and call it what it is: a huge tax increase for a lot of Michigan residents.  Otherwise you are just being dishonest.
• Many Michigan workers accepted lower pay and smaller increases with the understanding that their deferred pensions would receive the favorable tax treatment.  Now Gov. Snyder wants the state to renege on that promise.
• Like it or not, many retirees (including us) have decided to retire in Michigan at least in part because of the tax treatment.  If the tax increase passes--however justified--our disposable income will have gone down by a significant amount.  Since we have no particular family ties to Michigan, one of our incentives for living here will have disappeared.
• I find it especially interesting that Conservatives are making "tax fairness" as a central part of their argument.  When Progressives were talking about tax fairness in relation to the advantageous tax treatment for things like carried interest and the tax on corporate dividends, they were accused of waging class warfare, i.e., playing Robin Hood by taking from the rich and giving to the middle class.  How odd it is that taking from the middle class and giving to the rich is not class warfare but simply "tax fairness".  How hypocritical.
• Many--if not most--Republicans have run on a no-tax-increase platform.  Some have signed pledges.  I guess that all they have to do is just call a tax increase something else and they are off the hook.  So much for principle.

Newt

Newt Gingrich now says that he was an adulterer because he loves his country too much.  I wonder if that covers the adultery on both of his ex-wives?

You've got to be kidding me.

So Who Are the Real Elitists?

I just read Caroline Baum's opinion piece on Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-04/for-smaller-government-get-shorter-lawmakers-commentary-by-caroline-baum.html), where she seems to argue that term limits would be the answer to all our problems.  Isn't it interesting how Conservatives accuse progressives of elitism, but  they seem to not trust ordinary people to make good decisions, so they want to take the decisions away from us.  Two important examples jump out right away:

• Term limits (Conservatives don't trust the people who vote so they want to artificially take away our choice of who we can vote for).
• Limits on jury awards (Conservatives don't trust people on juries so they want to artificially limit what juries can do).

Two of the things that distinguish America from many other democracies are the right to have your day in court and your right to vote for whom you please.  Conservatives want to limit both of those rights, apparently because they think you won't exercise those rights the way they want.

Pretty elitist, huh?

More Trivialities

In my 9/18/10 post, I listed phrases that disqualify a writer or commentator from being taken seriously.  Their use indicates that the commentator is too lazy to present an actual argument or position (or, more likely, that no such argument really exists) and is simply resorting to banality.  Here are a few more words and phrases to add to that list.

• "The market hates uncertainty" (the market is uncertainty)
• "Nanny state" (I'm 62 and no government nanny has ever forced me to do anything)
• "Elitist" (i.e., anyone with an idea you don't agree with?)
• "Values voter" (aren't we all?)
• "Pro-growth tax cuts" (as opposed to the other kind?)
• "Pro-family" (anyone you disagree with is obviously anti-family)

Christian Life Resources and Politics (Part 6)

Every now and then Christian Life Resurces (CLR) carries an article that accuses the Democrats and President Obama of promoting "death panels" and health care rationing (see Jan. 6 post).  CLR also claims not to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party.  But isn't it interesting that they look for health care rationing where none exists, but are strangely silent when actual health care rationing in the Republican state of Arizona (where transplants have been denied for budgetary reasons) has apparently contributed to at least a couple of deaths.  I am eagerly waiting for the story to appear on their website.  Fat chance.

Christian Life Resources and Politics (Part 5)

Recent headline on the Christian Life Resources website: "Pro-Life Leaders Want Congress to Overturn Death Panel Regs".

As you can see by the politically charged vocabulary, every once in awhile CLR wants to remind us that they aren't really what they claim to be.  Rather, they are just one more right-wing blog advancing a fringe political agenda.