Mr. Blusters Everywhere

If you do a search on the word "bluster" the first thing that pops up on Google is the following definition:

bluster (noun): loud, aggressive, or indignant talk with little effect.

Well now...just close your eyes and picture most of the GOP presidential candidates (as well as the Tea Party, the neo-cons of the Bush presidency, and all the Tom Cottons in the Senate).  Pretty much the poster children for the word "bluster", huh?  Lots of hot air and "loud, aggressive, or indignant talk", but very little in the way of substantive policy.  In other words, "...with little effect".  Do you really think ISIS is afraid of Donald Trump or any of the rest?  They think he's a fool (because he is).

When I was a kid in the 50s watching Howdy Doody, one of the puppets was Mr. Bluster. (I think he was the mayor of Doodyville.)  The current slate of GOP candidates makes it seem like we have Mr. Blusters everywhere.

God help us if any of them becomes president.

Danger of Predicting Gasoline Prices

In March of 2012, Senator Mike Lee (R-Outer Space) predicted that if Obama were reelected, gas prices would go to $6 per gallon by the end of his second term.  While Obama still has about 14 months to go and things could change, here is the picture I took with my phone when I filled up at Meijer in South Bend today.

Corruption in Wisconsin

I was born and raised in Wisconsin, so I still have an interest in what's happening there and I am very sad. Wisconsin had a well-deserved reputation as the poster child of honest government. Well...not any more.  Scott Walker and his right-wing legislature has created a government that is opaque and corrupt.

Don't like the mining laws?  Well, it's easy. Just invite the mining industry to write a new law. And we can lie about how many jobs it will create (zero) and screw the environment.

Then lets get rid of open meeting laws. And lets dismantle one of the finest university systems in the nation.

But the coup de grace is the latest....Don't want to be investigated for your lawbreaking?  First have a Republican judge halt the investigation.  And then just to be safe lets just gut the law. Why? Because we can. Keep in mind that this law had been on the books for 165 years and is one reason the state had pretty clean government. And the charge of partisanship breaks down because Republican attorneys were among those calling for the probe.  Quite simply, the only partisanship involved is the Republicans who gutted the law so they wouldn't have to break it.

Quote of the Day

"The Republicans at the Benghazi hearing made Hillary a proxy for an aspect of this phenomenon that virtually every blue-state American has seethed at in the last decade or so: being accused of treason.

We've been told that we hate veterans, that we sympathize with terrorists, that we long for a UN takeover or Soviet rule. It's said all the time that it makes us happy to see cops shot or soldiers killed in battle. Not only do we hear this on right-wing TV, we see the amazing spectacle of millions of conservatives believing it. To believe this stuff, you'd have to believe we aren't even people."

Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone today, writing on Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Committee. Read his whole column if you have the time. It only takes a few minutes.

Quote of the Day

I repost this quote every year about this time (because I can!).  It's one of my favorites. Although this was written in 1941, Agee certainly could have been talking about today's Republican Party.

"A civilization which for any reason puts a human life at a disadvantage; or a civilization which can exist only by putting human life at a disadvantage; is worthy neither of the name nor of continuance. And a human being whose life is nurtured in an advantage which has accrued from the disadvantage of other human beings, and who prefers that this should remain as it is, is a human being by definition only, having much more in common with the bedbug, the tapeworm, the cancer, and the scavengers of the deep sea."

James Agee,  Let Us Now Praise Famous Men

Oh, Jeb, We Hardly Knew Ye

As the Jeb Bush's presidential campaign has unfolded, it's hard not to agree with the idea that W. was probably the "smart" one all along.

Some Carefully Thought-out Opinions

• Those of us white folks who consider ourselves supporters of Black Lives Matter, and civil rights in general, have benefited from white privilege just like our racist brothers and sisters. The white abolitionists of the nineteenth century reaped economic benefits from slavery, maybe not like the southern slave owners, but they benefited nonetheless. And if I have benefited, then it must have been at someone else's expense. This doesn't mean we have to question the sincerity of our beliefs, nor those of the abolitionists. But it is healthy to acknowledge this truth as a first principle.
• I find it very interesting how my conservative friends (including, of course, conservative Lutherans!) are so offended that the current pope seems to be butting his nose into some political issues. I don't recall quite the same discomfort when the previous two popes dabbled in politics. Perhaps they aren't opposed to the pope involving himself with politics, as long as they are politics that they agree with??
• Here's hoping that Carly Fiorina's apparent problems with telling the truth--Planned Parenthood videos; her implication that she worked her way from secretary to CEO like Melanie Griffith; her statements about HP selling in Iran--will warrant the same level of scrutiny from The New York Times that they have shown in their relentless (and so far pretty beef-less) pursuit of Hillary Clinton.

Headline of the Day

"The Return of Voodoo Economics"

from John Cassidy's (excellent) article in The New Yorker, discussing Jeb Bush's (un)new economic plan.

Details Please...

Dick Cheney (yesterday):  "I was right about Iraq....The world's a much better place without [Saddam Hussein]."

Me:  "Please explain, in detail, Mr. Vice President, exactly how it is such a better place."

Since a few thousand Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis lost their lives, I expect a very long and detailed list.  I can give you two examples off the top of my head that suggest the opposite. (1) On the day you guys invaded Iraq, you guaranteed that Iran would become the most important power in the Mideast (along with Israel).  (2) There were an estimated 1.5 million Christians living in Iraq under Saddam before the war. Most of them are gone, and that was true long before ISIS was around.  The Christians in Iraq were probably doomed when you invaded.

GOP, Ben Carson, and Dick Cheney

• It's kinda fun to watch all these "tough" GOP candidates whine about how the press (and everyone else, I guess) is picking on them.  Wah-wah!
• I have done a little Googling on the subject and haven't been able to find anyone on the Religious Right who has any misgiving--much less outrage--over Ben Carson using aborted fetal tissue in his research.  Can you spell M-O-R-A-L R-E-L-A-T-I-V-I-S-M?
• I see that Dick Cheney is going to give a speech this month opposing the Iran deal.  Is he really a closet supporter?  I think his speech will help the pro-deal cause.  Does anyone want to be on the same side as Dick Cheney on any issue?

End of August Miscellany

Clearing some things from my mind the last days of August:

We pretty much stopped shopping at Amazon a couple years ago. (Not a 100% boycott, but pretty close.)  The New York Times piece really didn't contain much that's new.  We have a much clearer conscience shopping at Walmart than we do at Amazon.  And that's been true for a long time.

Radical religious extremists now control the governments in Israel, India, Iran (although, ironically, Iran's government is less radical than, say, ten years ago), and parts of Africa.  Some might add Pakistan and even Iraq.  And others--such as Turkey--are moving more and more in that direction.  In all these cases, the world is worse off.  In the US, radicals of the Religious Right would like to have the same thing happen here.  We used to have a Constitution to protect us from that happening, but with the current activist Supreme Court I am not as confident of that protection as I used to be.

During all the faux-scandals of the past few years (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, et al...I lost count), the hyper-ventilating Right would have you believe that the "Liberal" media simply covered things up.  On the contrary, these things were incessantly covered, way beyond anything dictated by reality.  They faded away because the Darrell Issas and Fox Newses of the world were unable to answer the question,"Where's the beef?"  They made up their own facts for a while but the public eventually just yawned.  The same thing will happen with the latest faux-Planned Parenthood scandal, and probably even the faux-Hillary Clinton email scandal.  As Kevin Drum says, there's no there there.

My wife has been on Social Security for much of Obama's presidency (early 2009 to now).  Her benefit has gone up an average of less than 1.5% per year.  I'm not complaining about that.  That's what the CPI has been.  My point is that Rick Santelli and other inflationistas have been panicking about inflation for most of those seven years and have been screaming for the Fed to raise rates.  I have two questions: (1) What inflation? (2)  Why is anyone still listening to people who have been so consistently wrong for seven years straight?

WELS Misses the Mark on Gay Marriage

Headline on the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church  (WELS) website, in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage: "Marriage under Assault". Ummmm...I have news for the WELS: marriage has been under assault from heterosexuals since the day it was instituted. Why all the concern now? I don't see how LGBTs can possibly make the institution any worse.

Musings

Haven't posted much in the last couple months, partly for valid reasons and partly because I am just plain lazy. I thought I'd better post something so my account doesn't get canceled for lack of use.

• What are the chances of seeing some outrage from Christian Life Resources (or any other voice from the Religious Right) about Ben Carson's research with aborted tissue? (Zero) They have spent weeks being outraged over a few edited videos of doubtful validity and veracity. They don't have the time or inclination to be outraged over a true story.
• I am 67 years old and I'm amazed at how I am continually blown away by authors that I hadn't heard of a few years ago. (My fault.) The short stories of Lydia Davis are the latest revelation.
• Speaking of Ben Carson....His justification for using aborted fetal tissue was pretty familiar for a Republican. Is torture okay? Only if we're the ones doing it. Is it okay to use "harvested" fetal tissue for research? Only if I'm the one doing it. I think he is qualified to be a Republican presidential candidate. Moral relativism has become a guiding principle.
• I read the other day (I forgot where) that the only people opposed to the Iran Deal are the hardliners in Iran, the hardliners in Israel, and the hardliners in the United States. Pretty accurate I'd say.
• I see that Scott Walker has found a subsidy he likes (some $250 million plus interest) for an NBA arena in Milwaukee. No Medicaid expansion in the state but $250 million for those underprivileged hedge fund managers who own the team. Oh....and they also happen to be campaign contributors.
• According to the CDC, the uninsured population has decreased from 20% to 13% since the ACA has been in effect.
• According to Christian Life Resources, there have been fewer abortions per year during the Obama administration than any time since the mid-70s. Wait...I thought Obama invented abortion!
• The undocumented immigrant population is lower today that in 2007.

Christian Life Resources Reaches a New Low

Christian Life Resources (CLR) has reached a new low in its on-the-fringe right-wing activism. Not only did it publish a story about the original tainted video about Planned Parenthood "selling" body parts. It has now doubled- and tripled-down by taking at face value the more recent follow-up video.  There is only one word for this: lying.

CLR has a habit and long history of publishing stories that are full of dubious science and dubious facts.  As long a story fits into their activist political agenda, they will publish it on their website, regardless of the validity. Christian Life Resources has become the poster child for moral relativism.

But this latest round hits a new low.  There are several fact check articles that pick apart the video.  They are there for anyone to see.  The video is blatantly edited to the point of falsehood.  The second video appears to be the same.  The group making the videos has a history of falsehood and deception.  Christian Life Resources' willingness to present this as a reliable and factual story in spite of the evidence to the contrary simply reaffirms what I have been saying on this blog for several years now: CLR will sink to any depth to advance its political cause.  Apparently anything is acceptable as long as it serves their perceived "higher purpose".

But this may be the worst ever.  It's utterly disgusting.

Quote of the Day

"Supporters of the Affordable Care Act, starting with President Barack Obama, have generally taken the high road in response to Thursday’s decision by the Supreme Court to uphold the heart of the law. Graciousness in victory is, perhaps, its own reward. But it may also be appropriate, on the occasion of the 6–3 decision in King v. Burwell, to observe that this lawsuit was from its inception a shameful and cynical exercise, which illustrated the debasement of the contemporary conservative legal movement."

Jeffrey Toobin  in The New Yorker

 

Randomness at the End of June

• It seems that most of the rest of the world is pretty satisfied with Obama's foreign policy. The comparison between 2008 and 2015 is striking.
• I have never agreed with Antonin Scalia's judicial philosophy, but it is sad to see a once-respected jurist turn into a caricature of himself. He is becoming more and more irrelevant.
• The Occupy movement has been dismissed as some sort of failure, but it is the single biggest reason that we are talking about income inequality today.
• Similarly, folks can talk about Eric Snowden in any way they want, but he is the reason we are starting to rein in the NSA.  We should let him come home. (Maybe he deserves a ticker tape parade.)
• I wish Obama had pursued some of his other proposed policies with as much ardor and passion as he did for the TPP.

Middle C

I just finished reading William H. Gass's novel Middle C (a Christmas gift from my daughter). First, I have to confess (with embarrassment) that I had never even heard of Gass before. But my second confession is that I was totally dazzled! So glad I had the chance to read this book.

Christian Life Resources - Another Scam

I frequently check out the website of Christian Life Resources  (CLR) to see what distortions are showing up on their site. [CLR was a group originally established as a pregnancy counseling service affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Church (WELS). Over the years, however, it has become increasingly politically active and can be identified with conservative causes far removed from its original mission.] Today I noticed an article which cited the American College of Pediatricians. Don't be fooled. This is a sham organization of socially and politically conservative persons using the word "pediatrician" as a guise to imply it is a professional organization like the legitimate American Academy of Pediatrics. It is not. It is really more of a Religious Right hate group like Tony Perkins' Family Research Council, rather than a real medical organization. In fact, I think it's fair to say that the medical community regards most of their pronouncements as scientific quackery.  CLR should be ashamed to depict this group as a legitimate scientific authority.

Thoughts at the End of April

• One of the suggestions on my Twitter page for who I might be interested in following is Darrell Issa! Something is seriously wrong with their algorithm.
• Latest from Calgary Ted Cruz: "Obama is not a disaster because he was a senator. Obama is a disaster because he’s an unmitigated socialist, what he believes is profoundly dangerous, and he’s undermined the Constitution and the role of America in the world." Why would I ever care about anything he says after that? (Not that I really cared before.) I don't have time to listen to everyone, and this statement puts his credibility at zero.
• Hate monger Franklin Graham is once again blaming Obama for Christians being killed in Iraq. And he is once again blaming it on Obama's "Islamic upbringing". First of all, it's obvious that Graham didn't take me up on my suggestion (see my post of 3/14/15) that he go to his pastor and confess his sin and ask for forgiveness for bearing false witness against the president. Fortunately for Graham (and all of us sinners) God is patient. Mr. Graham still has time to repent. Secondly, Franklin Graham needs to review the history of the Iraq War (and not the make-believe one on Fox News). The Christians in Iraq were pretty much doomed the day that Bush invaded. A million or more fled and many were killed during the Bush years, including some who were beheaded. (I don't remember Graham's outrage then, do you?) Criticism of Obama is certainly reasonable, but to pretend that the problem began with ISIS is dishonest. (Mr. Graham can be forgiven for that sin, too.) If the Religious Right was so concerned with persecution of Christians, they should have opposed Bush's war from the start.
• I see that George W. Bush has weighed in on Obama's Middle East policy. It seems that he believes it could lead to chaos. Well, I am willing to concede that nobody probably knows more about causing chaos in the Middle East than GW. But now that Bush has joined the likes of Dick (and Liz) Cheney, William Kristol, John Bolton, and others in disapproving of the policy, I'm thinking that what better endorsement could Obama receive than having this discredited roster opposed to you?

Jindal Is Clueless

There are many things to be puzzled about with today's Republican Party. But one of the most puzzling (and scariest) is that Bobby Jindahl is still taken seriously. Matt Taibbi gives us one more example.

Warning for All

Here's a useful rule of thumb for all. If a sentence begin with the following three words, you can be assured that what follows will be filled with hate: "Franklin Graham says...."

March Madness

Thoughts during the last day of March:

• We live in Michigan--only a few miles from South Bend, Indiana--so we obviously have an interest in what's happening in Indiana. We spend a fair amount of money in the state, so we will examine closely whether we want to continue to do so.
• Governor Pence is either totally clueless or totally dishonest to claim the law was passed without any thought of discriminatory intent. The rhetoric of the supporters and the promoters of the law before and after its enactment states exactly what that intent was.
• The context and timing are important, even if Pence claims naivete about it. Does anyone really question why this particular bill was passed at this particular time in this particular way? The continual citing of the federal law and those other 19 states carries no weight. Most of those laws were not passed against the backdrop of an anti-LGBT agenda like we saw in Indiana. (Not to mention that the Indiana law is even broader--intentionally so--than the federal law and most of the state laws that Pence tries to use for comparison.)
• And lastly, while I am somewhat sympathetic to the businesses, localities, and the Indiana Chamber of Commerce who don't like the bill (or at least the outcry against it), my sympathy only goes so far. Forty out of the fifty state senators are Republican, and the Indiana House also has a huge Republican majority.  These big majorities didn't result solely from the votes of religious extremists. Rather, it is likely that many of these business owners probably voted for the very legislators that passed this law. Similarly, I suspect that the Chamber endorsed more than a few of these legislators. It reminds me of the business groups and "moderate" Republicans on the national level who bemoaned the government shutdown after working so hard to get candidates elected who perpetrated that shutdown. Well, you got the legislature you wanted, so don't be surprised when they do stupid things. The same holds for Indiana. You elected this legislature, now you will have to share in paying the price for that. I'm sorry that I will have to take my business elsewhere, but think about that when you go to the polls next election.

Keep on Keepin' On

Last night we watched the wonderful documentary "Keep on Keepin' On", about the relationship between Clark Terry and the young jazz pianist Justin Kauflin. See it if you have the opportunity, it's only an hour and a half. And rest in peace, Clark.

Are You Kidding Me?

I haven't seen too many things dumber than this.

Franklin Graham's Chance for Repentance

Franklin Graham was on fellow hate monger Tony Perkins' radio show the other day with an accusation that Obama's mother "must have been a Muslim". (I guess this is supposed to imply that Obama himself is a Muslim.) Of course, he gave no explanation or proof other than claiming that Obama's father and step-father were Muslim--both of which are false

There is a term for this kind of innuendo gossipy character assassination. It's called "bearing false witness". In case Mr. Graham has forgotten, it is the 9th Commandment and he can find it in both Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. There is also another word for it: "sin".

Now it's quite possible that Mr. Graham spends so much time pointing out the alleged sins of the rest of the world that he doesn't have the time or inclination to recognize his own. Or maybe he simply lacks the character and integrity of his father. In any case, like all of us sinners, Franklin Graham is fortunate that God is merciful and forgiving. I hope he confesses his sin and asks for that forgiveness.

Kim Jong-un Feels Snubbed...

From The New Yorker.

One Man's Theory

According to the February report, there were about 8.7 million unemployed workers in the U.S. For the sake of a hypothetical argument, let's say that somehow we could airlift those 8.7 million people somewhere out of the country, to Mars or somewhere. Now we are left--at least for an instant--with zero unemployed people, because we got rid of all those lazy freeloaders.

My contention--I obviously have no proof--is that within some period of time--one year? five years? ten years?--we would have something similar to 8.7 million unemployed workers. Why? Because man has not yet been able to invent an economic system that doesn't rely on a surplus of labor in order to operate.

So, did this new group of unemployed become lazy freeloaders like the ones we airlifted to Mars? I don't think so. The system had to create them. I don't say it is done consciously or with malice, just that it happens. At any point in time, many (probably most) of the unemployed are not there voluntarily, nor do they want to stay that way. And if too many of them do get jobs and their number decreases too much, the system will have to create more of them from somewhere else.

So for a bleeding heart liberal--or socialist--like me, the question becomes what--if anything--to do about it? We can't eliminate the 5%, or whatever the magic tipping point is. Last week's freeloader is working this week and we had to create another to take his place. So if we accept the 5%, why not do what we can for them until their turn comes. The actual cost is incredibly small, compared to, say, a B-1 bomber. So why not provide an income floor or something, until someone invents the system that doesn't rely on them? In a sense, we couldn't survive without them. We can at least pay them for their service.

Anyway, that's my theory. I'm not claiming it's scientific, or even original. Just one man's view of how the world works.

Fetal Pain Dishonesty

The Christian Life Resources (CLR) website has an article today which states that there is "compelling evidence" that fetuses feel pain "by 20 weeks...if not earlier." The current scientific evidence is exactly the opposite. Pursuing anti-abortion legislation is a perfectly valid thing for an anti-abortion advocacy group to do. Using dishonest claims to buttress your argument is unacceptable for a group whose advocacy is supposedly based on Christian moral principles. Unfortunately, it's not the first time this sort of misrepresentation has appeared on the CLR website.

Target Gobbledygook

I happened to catch this article on Business Insider today, about Target laying off thousands of workers (whatever that means), mostly in their headquarters. What really caught my eye, though, was the following quote from the company's statement about the lay-offs. This is kind of the poster child for inane corporate-speak bullshit in thirty-one words:

The restructuring will be concentrated at Target's headquarters locations and focus on driving leaner, more efficient capabilities, removing the complexity and allowing the organization to move with greater speed and agility.

Did somebody actually get paid to write that? Is there even a shred of meaning in any of it?

Well, here is a rough translation: "Target will be eliminating thousands of jobs, so that the remaining employees will be able to do more work for less money. We hope the extra work will make them leaner and more agile."

The Wisconsin Sell-Out

Wisconsin--thanks to Scott Walker--is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and the mining companies.  Here is Walker in 2013, speaking about a bill written by the mining industry:

On behalf of the unemployed skilled workers in our state who will benefit from the thousands of mining-related jobs over the next few years, I say thank you for passing a way to streamline the process for safe and environmentally sound mining in Wisconsin.

One mining company recently announced that it's closing its office in northern Wisconsin.  Number of jobs created?  Approximately zero.

So, About "Loving America"...

It is amusing to hear right wingers talk about whether someone has a sufficient love of America. I am almost 67 years old now, and no one has yet defined what that means in a satisfactory way. (Let's leave aside the curious fact that the Right seems to prefer that thrice-married adulterers pass judgment on the character and values of other people. [Sorry, Dinesh D'Souza, but you have an adultery or two to go before you qualify as such a spokesperson.])

But since the Right seems to be teeming with Constitutional scholars, and since those scholars believe that something is worthy only if it's explicitly in the Constitution, you'd think that they would disapprove of such talk. There is no Constitutional requirement to love America. So those of us who believe flag burning is okay should be left alone.

And for the Religious Right...There also isn't a biblical mandate to love America. There is a clear teaching to respect and honor government. But love your country? Not so much. Indeed, one could more easily make the case that American Exceptionalism is a form of idolatry.

So, even if all those constitutional scholars and Religious Right folks could come up with an actual working definition of "loving America"--other than wearing a flag lapel pin and hating Muslims--their own sacred documents contradict their efforts.

Kevin Drum Is Often Right On

From Kevin Drum's blog yesterday (here's the link for the whole thing):

So this is what I want to hear from Republican critics of Obama's ISIS strategy. I agree with them that training Iraqi troops and relying on them to fight ISIS isn't all that promising. But the alternative is likely to be something like 30-50,000 troops committed to a battle that will result in hundreds of American casualties. Are Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz willing to own up to that? If they are, then good for them and we'll let the American public decide who's got the better strategy. But if they're not, then it's all just a con job for the rubes. The GOP candidates are screaming for "more," but not willing to acknowledge what "more" really means.

Today's Random Thoughts

• I saw on my wife's Facebook page that our nephew and his wife just got their concealed carry permits. I hope they feel safer now because I sure don't.
• It's fine with me if real journalists like Brian Williams are held to higher standards than hacks like Bill O'Reilly.
• I reached page 1,000 in Les Miserables. Only 200 to go!
• Rudy Giuliani joins T. Boone Pickens and Jack Welch on my list of people who used to be obnoxious but are now actually dishonorable. (Ken Langone is close. He might make the list yet.)
• Yesterday's Andy Borowitz piece on newyorker.com is pretty good.
• When I went to church this morning and the pastor announced the forgiveness of sins, I noticed that he didn't say that my forgiveness required the approval of Phil Roberston or James Dobson or Franklin Graham or Sarah Palin or Tony Perkins or Mike Huckabee. Lucky for me, I guess.

Quote of the Day

"In a way, it's impossible to win a debate with O'Reilly because he is not bound by reality."

David Corn, in Mother Jones, on Bill O'Reilly's false claims

No Comment Needed

Here's the Real Giuliani.

From Steve M.

After I put up my last post, I came across this from Steve M. on his "No More Mister Nice Blog".  It's related to the second bullet point in my post about the Right's penchant for wanting the right words spoken rather that the right policy pursued.  I think he nails it.

From his post:

Our pols and reporters aren't much on picking up guns these days, but boy, do they love words. Words are obviously the journalists' stock in trade, but words are pretty much all we ever get from right-wing politicians -- they don't do anything. (OK, OK -- at the state level they bust unions and shift the tax burden away from the rich.) So they've persuaded themselves that words are the secret weapon. They shout "Radical Islam!" and tell themselves: THIS CATCHPHRASE KILLS ISLAMOFASCISTS. They think trash-talk equals valor. (Yes, I'm talking to you, Rudy Giuliani and Dinesh D'Souza.) They're still the self-deluding 101st Fighting Keyboarders -- but now they have the mainstream media on their side

In the News

In the news:

• The Religious Right would have you believe that the Atlanta fire chief was fired for his religious beliefs.  Hogwash.  He was fired for distributing his book to employees and improperly foisting his religious beliefs on others.  It was an abuse of his position of authority.  It's another phony religious issue by groups who apparently believe that Christians have more rights than non-Christians and that they have a blank check for any behavior.  In effect, they believe in a sort of Sharia Law for Christians. Well, I am a Christian and I think what he did was absolutely wrong.  Stop whining and accept the consequences for your actions, just like you expect everyone else to do.
• I really haven't heard a single conservative describe exactly what the US should be doing to combat ISIS other than saying that (of course!) whatever Obama is doing is wrong.  Instead, they seem more concerned with debating whether we are using the correct words to describe ISIS, rather than any serious discussion of actual policy.  Outrage and bluster is not policy.  We had plenty of that with John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney.  Look where that got us.
• So Rudy Giuliani says that Barack Obama doesn't love America.  Are there many people left who still care what Giuliani has to say about anything?  Surely he must rank high on the irrelevancy meter along with the aforementioned Dick Cheney.

When I Was a Freshman in College...

When I was a freshman in college in the late 1960s, the liberal arts school I attended had a course called "Freshman Studies".  The course was required for all freshman,and it covered two terms.  (The school had a trimester system, with the school year consisting of three ten-week terms.)  Another interesting thing (for those who have never heard of a Saturday class in college), is that the classes for everyone met on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday mornings.  I guess the idea is that they really wanted us to stay on campus and study all weekend rather than going home to do our laundry at Mom and Dad's.

Anyway, the syllabus consisted of ten books, five for each semester.  The books were read, discussed, and a paper written for each book.  The intent was to introduce us to the kinds of topics and ideas that we should expect to encounter during our four years at a liberal arts college (rather than just a course on "Great Books").

Now that I am pushing 70, I tried to recollect the list of books that we read in my freshman year (the list varied from year to year and era to era).  Here is the list I came up with, in no particular order (I think it's actually accurate):

Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics

William Faulkner, Light in August

Feodor Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment

Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Ben Shahn, The Shape of Content

J. H. van den Berg, The Changing Nature of Man

Plato, The Republic

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Communist Manifesto and                     Friedrich Engels, Socialism, Utopian and Scientific

Sigmund Freud, A General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Bertholt Brecht, The Life of Galileo

I found most of these books in my bookcase, the very ones I bought in college.  (We won't even talk about the prices in 1966.)  The only ones I seem to have lost are Marx and Engels.  One thing to note is that this list would be entirely fitting for a similar class today, even though it's almost fifty years later.  A second thing is for me to confess that I didn't read all these books in their entirety when I was a student.

With that in mind, I think I will try to reread (or read, as the case may be) most of these books.  I have read Light in August two or three times since my college days (it remains one of my favorite books of all time) and Crime and Punishment is a bit long (and yes, I actually read the whole book in college), so I might pass over those.  But maybe I can read the rest of them during 2015.  It'll be fun to try.

When #JonStewart leaves the only reliable news source left on cable tv will be #AlJazeera America.

— Ed (@leftistlutheran) February 11, 2015

Quote of the Day

“And what about the great granddaddy of zombie lies, trickle-down economics,” Bill Maher asked. “Can’t we throw that one under the bus too? It’s never worked and it never will work for good reason. Because it is like having three dogs and giving a wiener to one of them and thinking, ‘He will share it with the others.’”

Bill Maher, giving his ideas on some additional things for Republicans to throw under the bus, now that they've done it to Sarah Palin...

Boehner's Boner

Even the generals think Boehner and Netanyahu are wrong.

From the article:

Serving uniformed officers are loath to comment on an inflammatory political question — “You’re inviting me to end my career,” one senior Pentagon officer told me when asked to comment on Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu, “but, if it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not.” But a senior Joint Chiefs of Staff officer who regularly briefs the U.S. high command was willing to speak bluntly in exchange for anonymity. “There’s always been a lot of support for Israel in the military,” the officer said, “but that’s significantly eroded over the last few years. This caps it. It’s one thing for Americans to criticize their president and another entirely for a foreign leader to do it. Netanyahu doesn’t get it. We’re not going to side with him against the commander in chief. Not ever.”

And:

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, a West Point graduate and veteran of two U.S. wars, carefully calibrated his comments to reflect his unease with describing what serving officers think about Israel or Netanyahu. “It’s a really politically freighted question,” he said, “but I can tell you from my own experience that Mr. Netanyahu is way out of his lane. And you can be sure there isn’t a military officer in uniform who would get involved in this issue. It’s not just that Netanyahu is showing disrespect for Mr. Obama. It’s that he’s disrespecting U.S. institutions. He’s thumbing his nose at our way of doing things. Even for those out of uniform, this is a mistake. It’s one thing to show disrespect for President Obama — that happens all the time — but it’s another thing to show disrespect for America. That just can’t be tolerated.”

I doubt that you see this reported on Fox News.

Les Miserables

As I've gotten older and have fewer years left to read all the books that I should, I have resolved to read at least "big" (i.e., many pages) book every year.  Two years ago I finally read Ulysses.  Last year it was War and Peace.

This year I found Les Miserables in our bookcase--I have no idea where we got it--so I decided it was a good candidate for 2015.  Well, I just passed by page 500...only about 700 to go!

Wheat and Weeds

I suppose if I am going to keep "Leftist Lutheran" as the title of my blog, I should post some stuff that is kinda Lutheran now and then.  I suppose my rants at Christian Life Resources count, since the group was originally called WELS Lutherans for Life, but my gripe with them is that they are too political.

I am always amazed at the weak Christian theology that the Religious Right spews out.  I would be embarrassed to allow these people to speak for me.  I am referring to people like Phil Robertson, James Dobson, Sarah Palin, Tony Perkins, Mike Huckabee, etc., etc.  My issue with them is that there never seems to be any gospel in what they say.  And if there is any gospel at all, they are misusing it as Law.

For example, in all of Duck Dynasty Phil's homophobic rants, his implication is that gays are going to hell because they sin.  By implication, I guess he must be saying that they just have to stop sinning like he did or something like that.  This is a preposterous belief for a Christian.  Even when he makes a feeble attempt at the gospel, it's wrong:  he says that St. Paul was a sinner, too, but that the gospel "changed" him.  Well yeah, but Paul is saved (and Phil, too) because he's forgiven, not because he stopped sinning.  Paul was changed because he was saved, he wasn't saved because he changed. If it is necessary to stop sinning to be saved then we are all in deep doo-doo.  Turning the gospel into Law is as bad as no gospel at all.

I attended a WELS church service while traveling last year.  One of the scripture readings for that day was the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew chapter 13. In his brief explanation of the parable, the pastor wrote this (a pretty good summary how Lutherans should view this parable): 

"God intended to have a weed-free field of wheat.  From the beginning, however, the enemy thwarted his intentions with temptation and sin.  How many Christians have seen the evil all around them and pondered the servants’ question, “Didn’t you sow good seed?”

"How many churchmen have tried to separate the wheat and weeds in the kingdom with rules or monasteries, with inquisitions or Pharasaical laws?  Anyone who tries only succeeds in ruining the wheat along with the weeds.  They uproot the faith of the weak who fall into sin; they trample faith of the strong by feeding their pride.

"The Lord most certainly has a plan to separate the wheat and weeds—just not yet.  He has servants standing by to do the work—just not us.  Instead, God urges his people to live with their eye on the coming harvest.  God does not want us to separate wheat from weeds before then."

Today's Religious Right appears to be intent on separating the wheat from the weeds while here on earth.  It's not their job.  Like the Pharisees of old, they are intent on "feeding their pride".  Make no mistake...the gospel's purpose is to give comfort that we sinners are saved and forgiven.  When the Religious Right uses it as a club of the Law it is "preaching a different gospel" that we are warned about in Galatians.

Sooo....Hollywood types and country western singers are sparring on social media over American Sniper.  Ummmmm...who cares?

Contrasts II

This is my second blog post (first one was "Contrasts" on 11/25/14) illustrating the different racial lenses though which the American legal system views the motive and behavior of people.

In the first case, a black woman was arrested for abandoning her child (not sure what the exact charge was).  The child was in the park owing to an unusual sequence of events in the family's life, but the mother was working at McDonald's.  The child was hardly abandoned, and placing the kid in an already over-burdened foster care system served no one's best interest.  The mother was subsequently fired from her job.

In the second tragic case, which occurred yesterday, a toddler shot and killed himself with his father's gun which he found in the glove compartment of the car.  While I have no desire to see anyone punished for the tragedy, it does seem to me that having an unattended child in a car with a gun in the glove compartment is almost the definition of child endangerment.

As I said, no purpose would be served to punish anyone in the latter case, but I also fail so see what purpose was served by the woman's treatment in the first case. The contrast is instructive.

How I Spent My Day

Wednesday (Mild) Rants

• Jamie Dimon is whining again.  Take that as a clue that whatever he is whining about is a good thing.  I'll start feeling a little sorry for these bankers when a couple of them are in prison.
• I have a mental list of words and phrases that--if they appear in an article or opinion piece--will cause me to stop reading immediately.  The reason is that they indicate the writer's lack of an actual argument, so he/she reverts to cliches that trigger emotion but no real fact.  Among these are things like "politically correct" or "Al Gore invented the internet".  They are an indication of intellectual laziness.  Well, after the State of the Union last night, here's a new one to add to the list.  It was brought to my mind by Diana Furchtgott-Roth's (entirely predictable and tiresome) article today in which she invoked the phrase "class warfare".  Sorry, but your article is disqualified.  I can't read every article, so I will spend my time reading those that might contain actual worthwhile arguments.  And "class warfare" is officially added to my list of disqualifying phrases.
• I am amazed at how the MSM has dismissed the Occupy movement.  We can quibble around the edges, but does anyone think that the State of the Union would have dwelt so heavily on income inequality issues if the Occupy movement never existed?  The Zuccotti Park encampment closed down over two years ago but the issue is still reverberating.
• This means absolutely nothing that is statistically significant but I will say it anyway...Among my circle of friends and acquaintances, most of the veterans I know are liberal.
• A reminder:  the Dow has increased by about 110% since Obama took office.  The Dow decreased by more than 20% during the George W. Bush tenure.  Hmmm.
• I am happy about the last point because it's good for my finances, too.  But don't you think the 1% could afford a few more bucks in taxes without the world collapsing?
• I could never run for public office because I will never wear a flag lapel pin.

Some Stuff

Some stuff I have opinions about....

• Mike Huckabee's rant about the-Obamas-as-role-models gives us an opportunity to remind ourselves of the Religious Right's true stripes: nothing more than modern-day Pharisees.  Basically, they are saying that the world would be so much better if only everyone were like them.
• I observed--with some amusement--a recent exchange on Facebook (I am not on Facebook myself) where some right wingers were attempting to establish an equivalence between Steve Emerson's recent fabrications on Fox News about Birmingham and London; and Christiane Amanpour's use of the term "activist" instead of "terrorist" in her CNN report about the Paris bombing.  Ummm, let's see...In one case we have a supposed terrorism expert making statements that are utterly false (and it's hard to conceive that he didn't know they were false).  In the other case, we have a reporter filing a factual report whose only fault seems to be that one of her words offended the sensibilities of the right-wing PC police.  Apparently the equivalence is obvious to some, but I guess I am not so bright.
• I am astounded at the lengths to which people will go to find things to justify their racism.  And then I am even more astounded that they are so willing broadcast their racism publicly without a shred of embarrassment.
• Quote from Franklin Graham: “Christianity is constantly under siege from the halls of government and education, which seek to suppress any public expressions of faith.”  I am 66 years old and I have never been suppressed by the government or anyone else from publicly expressing my faith.  Maybe I'm just lucky.
• In 2012 James Dobson essentially said that the Sandy Hook tragedy was God's judgment on us, pretty much the fault of gays and abortion.  This is only the tip of the iceberg of the preposterous and hateful things he has said (especially since Obama was elected).  I have two questions about this.  First, why haven't religious leaders (including my own church body, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) called him on this blatantly false teaching?  How can you let such a theological lightweight speak for you (along with the aforementioned Franklin Graham and Dobson's partner in hate, Tony Perkins)?  And second, why would any parent have even an iota of interest in what he says about raising their kids?  No thanks.

Amazon

I recently purchased a new Dell power cord for my wife's laptop.  The UPS journey it took to get here was quite a trip:

Dec. 16--Order placed
Dec. 17--Sumner, WA
Dec. 17--Seattle, WA
Dec. 18--Redmond, WA
Dec. 21--Hodgkins, IL
Dec. 23--St. Joseph, MI [note:  this is about 20 miles from my home]
Dec. 24--Brooklyn, NY !!!!
Dec. 26--Maspeth, NY
Dec. 27--Parsippany, NJ
Dec. 27--Maumee, OH
Dec. 30--St. Joseph, MI [yup..again]
Dec. 30--Niles, MI
Dec. 31--delivered [yayyy]


My little package traveled more than 3700 miles over 15 days but it did finally arrive.

Reading List for 2014

My 2014 reading list.  I wouldn't be much of a literary critic...I'm not sorry I read any one of these books...


Thomas McGuane,  Driving on the Rim
Ursula Hegi,  Floating in My Mother’s Palm
Jason Turow, with Michael Duca,  The Baseball Codes
Doris Lessing,  The Golden Notebook
Thomas H. Cook,  The Last Talk with Lola Faye
James Salter,  A Sport and a Pastime
William Kennedy, Ironweed
Tahmima Anam,  A Golden Age
William Boyd,  A Good Man in Africa
Mona Simpson,  My Hollywood
Ali Smith,  The Accidental
Gabriel Garcia Marquez,  One Hundred Years of Solitude (second reading)
Donald Carrisi,  The Whisperer 
William Vollmann, Europe Central
John Banville,  The Sea
Eudora Welty,  Delta Wedding
Vladimir Nabokov,  Lolita
Patrick O’Keeffe,  The Hill Road
W. G. Sebald,  Austerlitz
James Baldwin,  Go Tell It on the Mountain
Nadine Gordimer,  Life Times:  Stories, 1952-2007

Louise Erdrich,  The Plague of Doves 

Daniyal Mueenuddin,  In Other Rooms, Other Wonders

Now...on to 2015 and a new list....