O’Reilly calls for Catholic Church to sanction priest for defending Wright

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5909

I think this is something like the 3rd week the “liberal media” has been bashing Obama over Rev. Wright’s “God Damn America” sound bytes. This isn’t surprising for those who have noticed how the mainstream media has consistantly jumped to the side of the underdog. First they loved up to Obama because he was the “new guy”, then they jumped over to Hillary when he started to win, and have continued to switch partners as the polls swing back and forth so as to drag the Democratic primary out as long as humanly possible. It’s not like they didn’t have this stuff on Wright from the very beginning.

Yes, Rev. Wright and Louis Farrakhan are both crazy. But they really aren’t as racist and hate-filled as everyone would have you believe. Obviously the part about government infecting the population with AIDS and Syphallis is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory, but it’s hardly unthinkable. North Carolina secretly sterilized 65,000 people between 1929 and 1974. His statements on “God Damn America” were issued against the violence that America spreads, whch is something Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out as well, saying that America was the “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today” and that “America was founded on genocide, and a nation that is founded on genocide is destructive.”

Farrakhan has blamed the Jews of Hollywood for making movies that depict black people as “less than human.” He’s said every American Jew is also a dual citizen of Israel, and in some cases, like that of Liberman, this is true. He’s called Hezbollah “freedom fighters”, which of course is nonsense, but it is true that they are a product of Israel’s injustice towards the Palestinian people. He’s said that rich Jewish bankers helped finance Hitler, which is partially true; many Jewish bankers did help finance both sides during the World Wars. And he’s said that for having such a small number of people, the Jews have a large influence over American and European politics, which is true.

A lot of it is skeevy, but really pretty low on the radar in terms of being “out-and-out” anti-semitic. Both of them deny being anti-white or anti-semitic, but then so did Mel Gibson. Like Apocalypto, there are hateful insinuations cloaked in historical interpretations, but I feel like I’ve heard so much worse, which brings me to Rev. John Hagee.

Hagee said that American and Israel need to ally up to bomb Iran to fulfill “God’s Plan”, which pretty much makes him admittedly anti-arab and anti-islamic. He considers Harry Potter to be contemporary witchcraft. Hurricane Katrina was an act of God meant to punish New Orleans for “a level of sin that’s offensive to God,” namely homosexuality, but also Bush’s pressuring Israel to give up some of its illegal settlements in the “tit for tat” exchange. He even erroneously said that the hurricane hit on the same day as a Gay Pride Parade, which in fact was scheduled a week later (plus the primarily gay neighborhoods such as the French Qurater were spared). He’s blamed Hitler’s anti-semitism on Catholicism without any consideration to the anti-semitic Protestant culture of Martin Luther (something very common; my sister’s history teacher Coach Ourso from Mandeville High teaches the same). He’s also written a book called Beginning of the End about how giving the Golan Heights to the Palestinians is “signing a deal with the Anti-Christ” that will bring about the Apocalypse. On a Praise-A-Thon broadcast in 1993, he said that “poverty is caused by sin and disobeying the Word of God.”

Unlike Farrakhan and Wright, Hagee is one of the highest-paid television evangelists in the world, making over a million dollars in 2001 alone. Hagee has claimed that McCain has sought out his vote, and after his endorsement, McCain said more than once that he was “very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” This, however, is not the story the media is interested in, because it doesn’t fit into the Hillary vs. Obama fight that they have been trying to frame for months now.

Lou Dubose writes in the Huffing Post:

“John McCain needed an evangelical to embrace and send a message to the Christian right that he will do their bidding, even if he’s not quite one of them. He settled on San Antonio End-Timer John Hagee.

Hagee’s bizarre theology would be harmless enough (perhaps) if confined to his multimillion-dollar temple. But John Hagee has a constituency that extends beyond his congregation. He used that constituency to build a foreign-policy advocacy organization–Christians United for Israel (CUFI)–that is now pressing for a pre-emptive war with Iran. CUFI brought 4,500 End Times activists to Washington for its July 2006 inaugural event, followed by a day of lobbying on the Hill.

Hagee was straightforward in announcing his agenda: “The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West,” he said.

John McCain has been pressed to renounce Hagee. He cannot. Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam leader, whose unsolicited “endorsement” created a problem for Sen. Barack Obama, can preach religious hate. But he works on the fringe of American religion and politics and is an unlikely guest at anyone’s White House. The influence of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright–Obama’s longtime pastor who is cut from a different cloth than Farrakhan–doesn’t extend beyond the African-American community in Chicago.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, is deeply invested in John Hagee and his followers.”

Bailing Out the Super Rich

My brother asked me the other day why I bother arguing with my dad about politics. “It’s not like you’re ever change anyone’s mind.”, he told me. I tried to convince him that I couldn’t speak for my dad but I wasn’t married to my ideas. I like to argue, but with every argument, you have to go in accepting the possibility of changing your mind. But he’s got a point about discussing politics in general. The majority of people, left or right, are incapable of critical thought and only repeat bland cliches they heard from someone else. Conceding defeat on even one topic is tantamount to rooting against your own football team. It seems like political discussion has replaced theology in the practice of mindlessly rattling off articles of faith that have no actual connection to the real world.

For example, Hillary Clinton just lately got caught in a huge lie with with surprisingly little effect on public opinion. I used to think you’d have to be insane to think you could get away with having an affair while in public office, but that’s downright reasonable compared to thinking you can get away with lying about getting shot at. Before Clinton even became the nominee, I laughed off Rush’s accusation about Hillary being a nominee, thinking no party could be so stupid as to allow the Clinton Drama become center-stage in American politics again. Now Rush is asking Republicans to fraudulently vote in Democratic primaries for her (suppossedly to maintain “chaos” but more likely because he is sick of 8 years playing defense). I understand Clinton lost a few points in the poll, but if that “gaff” can’t pry her out of the race, what on earth can?

But the real reason I bring all this up is the economy. That seems to be the one issue that Republicans always use for everything (probably because no one believes in the social issues of the 50’s anymore). Democrats tax and spend. Democrats are socialists. They want to “redistribute the wealth” and waste resources on “nation building.” Never mind that the last Democratic administration gutted welfare, passed NAFTA, and created the first surplus, “leftists” like Clinton and Gore are still said to want a “command economy.” Never mind that people who work for their money pay more taxes than those who make money off their money, or that the top 1% is receiving the largest share of national income since the first year of the Great Depression. According to them, money is only “redistributed” downward.

But by bailing out Bear Sterns, Bush has proven that he believes more in socialism than Clinton ever did, corporate socialism. Now, before I get accussed to “hating corporations,” I should point out that you can’t blame companies for asking for money any more than you can blame hobos. Companies are run by a board of directors who are obligated by their job description to make the most amount of money for their stock holders. So of course it’s no surprise they want to “capitalize” going up and “socialize” going down. But the problem is, they are the ones who caused this mess. Its deregulation that allowed Enron to destroy the job market in Texas and now its allowed banks to scam all these people out of money they didn’t have, and once again, the super rich that owns 90% of the wealth of this country got pissed at the middle class writing checks they couldn’t cash and are now refusing to invest the money that runs our economy. According to conservative and libertarian philosophy, we shouldn’t be bailing anyone out, but the problem with that is volatility. As unethical as it is to reward rich fatcats for failure (something Bush learned in his oil business days), it does stop the cascading effects from hitting the rest of the economy, which is why deregulation doesn’t help anyone.

I hope by acknowledging the banking system as our corporate masters and not wanting the economy to go into choas, no one reads me saying we should bail out Bear Sterns as a betrayal of my own principals. I don’t like playing Monopoly, but when the players break the bank, it’s better to start dishing out paper money. What upsets me more is that there is no new regulation standards that accompany them, because that is the only thing that is going to stop them from doing it again. Now that we’ve shown that we reward risk-taking by paying them whatever they lose at the slots, the banks will now be emboldened to gamble away the taxpayer’s money knowing we’ll bail them out again the next time it happens. I’d much rather see something like Stupidity Insurance for banks, but unfortuantely, this is the game we’re playing now thanks to the Conservative/Libertarian dream of a perfect self-regulating market system.

Then there’s gas prices. Bush complained that it was Clinton’s fault gas was at $1.64 and promised if he was president he would “jaw bone” OPEC. That’s a pretty funny description considering the “tough talk” amounted to saying: “If it’s possible, your majesty, consider what high prices are doing to one of your largest customers.” Actually, the mullahs are right on this one. It isn’t their fault. Supply and demand have little to do with what’s driving up oil. It’s speculation. Bush starts talking about attacking Iran, but doing that would cause oil to go up to $6, so speculators price oil up to $3 to hedge a bet even Bush isn’t stupid enough to call. This could be supplimented by opening up 1% of the strategic reserve, not only bringing prices down but making a profit for the government at the same time, but that’s not going to happen because oil companies like it this high.

So my big question is: what excuse do Republicans have? They have had over 7 years in power with both the Senate and the House on their side for the majority of that time. It seems to me, you have to come to 1 of 2 conclusions: either the presidency and the Senate have little or no effect on the economy, in which case the #1 Republican issue has been nothing but empty words all along, or Republican policy was in fact the cause of it and Right-wing Libertarians have traded away all their social issues for the economy we now have. I’m proud to call myself a Liberal but have never considered myself a Democrat. Still, if I did, I would be embarrassed if the Democrats were in power right now and would refuse to vote for them in the next election. Republicans, however, seem completely unaffected in their own convictions by the financial downturn.

This brings me to my point: is there any good reason to try and compare the effectiveness of economic philosophy with the current economy, or is it there always going to be some excuse that divorces philosophy from real life? Is economic theory really just another form of religion, something that’s pointless to talk about because no one is ever going to change their mind on something their parents told them when they were kids?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/Story?id=4141964&page=1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/03/08/in-2000-gop-trashed-dems-over-gas-prices/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/15772329/detail.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=736148

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17krugman.html


Corporate Socialism

Hang the Socialists!

I hate hearing about how all the news programs except Fox have liberal bias, and suppossedly always has been, although I don’t remember ever hearing that when the only news for an entire year was about Bill Clinton’s penis. The reason tv news sucks is because its really only entertainment now. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton are non-stop news stories that I just sick of. The fact that internet news is vastly superior in that you can choose what to read, and this is becoming more obvious now that the news channels are constantly talking about them. I really don’t care about “General Betrayus” or the fact that the one time someone other than a Ditto-heard started listening to Rush Limbaugh’s show, they were able to catch him repeating the words “fake soldiers” after a caller said them. I also didn’t care that Obama doesn’t want to wear a pin of an American flag that was probably made in China. But this is too far: After a family with handicapped children went public about how a government-funded health care program helped them after their children were injured in a car accident, a new right-wing smear campaign seems to have materialized, and is now lambasting them for being “rich.” Bill O’Reilly is constantly griping about the “hate speech” on the Daily Kos, but nothing he’s shown compares to what’s being posted on Redstate.org:

“If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. … I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I’d do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info.”

“Hang ’em. Publically… Let ’em twist in the wind and be eaten by ravens. Then maybe the bunch of socialist patsies will think twice.”

Umm, yeah.  I’ve never read anything quite that extreme on the Daily Kos. (Although then again, I never saw the doctored picture of Bush that O’Reilly constantly hyped on.)

Personally, i’m all for taxing people to help sick children, and i’m also for taxing the hell out of cigarettes, but combining the two doesn’t seem particularly logical to me. But regardless of whether the bill right or wrong: I can understand emotions getting high over sick and dying children; I really don’t understand why people can get so angry over cigarette taxes.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.frosts10oct10,0,2541063.story?page=2