First, I have to say that Barack Obama’s actions regarding Libya represents a tremendous improvement over the policies of the Bush years. Obama has not subjected us to an endless series of lies regarding the reasons for going to war, ranging from false claims of threats from WMD to false claims of Saddam's involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Reviewing opinions from politicians, news outlets, and blogs, there is the usual irrational thought, often based upon ignorance or intentional deception, from both the right and the left. I pay less attention to the far left as, unlike the extremists of the far right which control a major political party, the extremists on the left are not of any real significance. For example, Michael Moore has little more credibility with me than does Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh – but Moore does not have the type of influence on the Democratic Party that Beck and Limbaugh have on the GOP. So, I ignore Michael Moore and people like him. This is even the case on issues where I mostly agree with Moore, such as healthcare reform, and true when his tweets on the current issue are counter to fact.
The best analysis about the War in Libya might come from Marc Ambinder in the National Journal. Ambinder concluded:
It was important to the U.S. that Libyans and the world understand that this coalition of the willing was more than a U.S. rhetorical construct. An hour before bombing began Saturday, Clinton spoke to the press in Paris. Asked why military action was in America’s interest, she gave three reasons and implied a fourth. A destabilizing force would jeopardize progress in Tunisia and Egypt; a humanitarian disaster was imminent unless prevented; Qaddafi could not flout international law without consequences. The fourth: there’s a line now, and one that others countries had better not cross.
The development of a new doctrine in the Middle East is taking form, and it could become a paradigm for how the international community deals with unrest across the region from now on. The new elements include the direct participation of the Arab world, the visible participation of U.S. allies, as well as a very specific set of military targets designed to forestall needless human suffering. Though the Libyan situation is quite unique – its military is nowhere near as strong as Iran’s is, for one thing – Obama hopes that a short, surgical, non-US-led campaign with no ground troops will satisfy Americans skeptical about military intervention and will not arouse the suspicions of Arabs and Muslims that the U.S. is attempting to influence indigenously growing democracies.
Some conservative bloggers are arguing that Obama is adopting the policies of George Bush, totally missing several important distinctions. Unlike with Iraq, the reason for going in is clear. Obama is going to war as part of a coalition of other nations and obtained the support of the United Nations before taking action against another country in a situation where the United States was not directly endangered. Obama also has pledged not to use United States ground troops, and does not appear to be interested in an occupation of yet a third country.
Fox has also taken the opportunity to raise false claims, such as that Obama is going on vacation as opposed to paying attention to the war. Think Progress reports:
Over the last 48 hours, as President Obama contemplated and then authorized U.S.-led military strikes in Libya “in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians,” Fox News talking heads have attempted to foment domestic political opposition to the president by questioning his priorities and leadership. Seizing on Obama’s current five-day trip to Brazil and other Latin American countries, Fox pundits have repeatedly said he is distracted in Rio de Janeiro and not adequately focused on the military action in Libya.
“He’s going on vacation; he’s going to Rio!” an incredulous Steve Doocy commented. “He’s on vacation in Rio,” Fox contributor Ralph Peters said, echoing the network’s attack. Referencing Rio, Washington Times columnist Charles Hurt opined, “President Obama has absolutely abdicated his role as leader of the free world.”
Perhaps Fox News pundits should read their own Fox News’ website. On a Fox website, it states, “Obama’s only planned sightseeing in Rio will be to the city’s iconic Christ the Redeemer hilltop statue, and even that had to be postponed from morning until evening to give him time for early briefings on the Libyan situation.” Here is how Fox’s White House reporter Eve Zibel, who is traveling with Obama on the trip, reported on the president’s priorities on his first day:
Libya Dominates President Obama’s First Day in South America: On the first day of President Obama’s first trip to South America, it was not relations with Brazil or its president that was front and center, but instead, attention was directly focused on Libya and the start of military action.
So, despite the evidence from news reports on Fox’s own websites that Obama is focused on Libya, Fox’s network pundits continue to shout shallow and untrue criticism about the Commander-in-Chief.
While spending too much time on all the factual and logical errors being made by right wing bloggers and pundits is not worthwhile, the comments from John McCain are worth noting, despite McCains long history of being wrong on foreign policy. Many conservatives agree with McCain’s mistaken view that Obama should have acted sooner and should use more than air power. In other words McCain would not have taken time to obtain international cooperation, most likely getting the country dragged into a third war of which the United States would bear most of the burden.
The delay was warranted, but Obama’s action was not perfect here (even if we accept for the sake of discussion that his ultimate decision was right). While true that presidents before him have all too often initiated military action without either a declaration of war or adequate consultation with Congress, this could have been the perfect situation for Obama to provide a real change. In a situation such as this, where the United States was not in imminent danger and there was already going to be a delay until military action was initiated; there was ample time to bring this matter before Congress. I wish he had done so.
Obtaining international support was the right thing to do, but even this did not work out perfectly. If the reaction from the American right wing has been irrational, the response by the Arab League has been far worse. From AP:
The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.
The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed.
Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians’ protection not shelling more civilians.”
U.S. and European strikes overnight targeted mainly air defenses, the U.S. military said. Libya says 48 people were killed, including civilians.
Their initial calls for a no-fly zone were naive if they consider the military action to date to now be grounds to withdraw their support. They must have thought that a no-fly zone did not require any military action on the ground.
I can only hope that our involvement does not increase much more, which there is a risk of happening. There was a warning from one conservative, George Will, when asked if this was the right thing to do:
“I do not,” Will said, “We have intervened in a tribal society in a civil war. And we’ve taken sides in that civil war on behalf of people we do not know or understand for the purpose of creating a political vacuum by decapitating that government. Into that vacuum, what will flow? We do not know. We cannot know.”
There is certainly an understandable tendency to want to intervene to protect civilians fighting against a tyrant, especially if the civilians are outgunned 100 to 1, especially since Kaddafi promised a blood bath, an extermination of all those participating in the opposition. But George Will is right in questioning the impact of intervening in a tribal society in an area where many hold extremist beliefs that support Muslim fundamentalism.
This could end up wrong with Islamists in control of the country – or Libya could end up with a sort of democracy. We can only wait to see. And now that the United States is involved militarily, it is not the best time to dwell over whether we should be there. Ultimately the answer will depend upon factors such as whether we can really be successful in maintaining a limited involvement to save lives without getting involved in a prolonged war or nation building.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Time to abandon nuclear energy
I have always been against nuclear power for two reasons. First, the highly radioactive nuclear waste must be stored deep underground for decades – and finding places to store it is nearly impossible. So far, despite our best efforts, no one anywhere in the world has found an appropriate permanent nuclear storage facility. Second, meltdowns may be “rare” as in Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and the disaster in Idaho in 1961, but when they happen they threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of people who live near them – look at what is happening in Japan as an example.
Nuclear energy has become obsolete. It is dirty, dangerous, and wastes resources, as the reactor's main fuel source, uranium, will run out in about 50 to 60 years, according to experts. After that, the nuclear plants will sit idle. Therefore, nuclear power is not sustainable. The people who want you to believe it is sustainable are nuclear lobbyists and energy company executives who make a lot of money from nuclear energy.
The nuclear crisis in Japan demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt how dangerous and unpredictable nuclear energy is. Yes, we can control nuclear fission. Yes, we know how atoms operate and what we need to do to use them to generate vast amounts of energy. But we also know now that experts, nuclear physicists, and politicians are alarmingly helpless when a plant is under threat. Suddenly, a feeling of powerlessness takes hold, and we can only hope that there is no total meltdown of a reactor.
The argument that Japan is sitting on a ticking tectonic time bomb, and that there are no earthquakes to speak of in Middle America, is far too easy. What about airplanes that could crash over a nuclear power station, a terrorist attack, a simple technical failure, or human error?
Do we really want to keep taking the risk when we have viable alternatives like solar and wind energy? We should be developing renewable energy that is sustainable and harmless. We have to start investing in these energies on a grand scale. These energy sources could be used to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Maybe the disaster in Japan has hopefully served as a wake-up call for the political elite. Now politicians have to demonstrate courage, break old habits and invest in technologies and energy sources of the future. Fat chance…
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html
Nuclear energy has become obsolete. It is dirty, dangerous, and wastes resources, as the reactor's main fuel source, uranium, will run out in about 50 to 60 years, according to experts. After that, the nuclear plants will sit idle. Therefore, nuclear power is not sustainable. The people who want you to believe it is sustainable are nuclear lobbyists and energy company executives who make a lot of money from nuclear energy.
The nuclear crisis in Japan demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt how dangerous and unpredictable nuclear energy is. Yes, we can control nuclear fission. Yes, we know how atoms operate and what we need to do to use them to generate vast amounts of energy. But we also know now that experts, nuclear physicists, and politicians are alarmingly helpless when a plant is under threat. Suddenly, a feeling of powerlessness takes hold, and we can only hope that there is no total meltdown of a reactor.
The argument that Japan is sitting on a ticking tectonic time bomb, and that there are no earthquakes to speak of in Middle America, is far too easy. What about airplanes that could crash over a nuclear power station, a terrorist attack, a simple technical failure, or human error?
Do we really want to keep taking the risk when we have viable alternatives like solar and wind energy? We should be developing renewable energy that is sustainable and harmless. We have to start investing in these energies on a grand scale. These energy sources could be used to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Maybe the disaster in Japan has hopefully served as a wake-up call for the political elite. Now politicians have to demonstrate courage, break old habits and invest in technologies and energy sources of the future. Fat chance…
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html
Monday, February 21, 2011
GOP agenda destroys middle class
The right to form a union is an American value. The right to form a union is critical to a democratic society because it is the only way to assure that employers do not treat their employees as commodities. The fight in Wisconsin is not about the money. The battle of public employees for their rights in Wisconsin is about fairness, the preservation and expansion of the middle class and keeping the American Dream alive. To the extent that Wisconsin has a budget deficit, it is a problem of the Governor's own making, thanks to tax breaks he just gave to corporations. And he wants the states public workers to pay for it.
The workers have already indicated their willingness to negotiate by accepting the increases in their healthcare and retirement contributions (basically, a pay cut) if the Governor would be willing to not take away their right to bargain for better wages and benefits at some point down the road. But the Governor will not budge – he continues to choose his ideological agenda over the people of Wisconsin.
Today, union membership is down, unemployment is up and the current generation of young people is the first in years to expect that they won't be as well off as their parents. Enter Governor Scott Walker, Speaker of the U.S. House John Boehner, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans who want an America run by and for the big corporations. Their agenda is to downsize government to dangerous levels, dismantle the public programs that keep our families safe and our communities strong, export our jobs overseas to increase corporate profits and fill their own pockets, and concentrate the nation's wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
These politicians are owned and operated by a powerful corporations and billionaires like the infamous Koch Brothers, who fund many right-wing front groups such as FreedomWorks, who sent people to Madison from across the country this weekend to stage counter-protests.
These politicians and organizations are part of a nationwide effort to take away collective bargaining. They are also trying to take away the important cost-saving benefits and consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act. And they want:
• Social Security to be privatized and eliminate Medicare as we know it – which will effectively kill Grandma, a point they shouted about during the healthcare debate. (They did not really care about Grandma.)
• A government that is so small, it will starve the poor, shrink the middle class, and eliminate small businesses.
• Tell you that if you become a vegetable, you have to be kept alive on machines.
• A government that looks the other way when oil companies recklessly drill offshore and mining firms operate without regard for the health and safety of their workers.
• And a government with enough power to tell a woman, her doctor and her family what to do about private healthcare decisions – basically take away the right of a woman to have an abortion if her life is in danger.
We all do better when we all do better.
Democrats and unions believe that work should be rewarded and workers treated with dignity and respect. They believe in an America where there is opportunity for everyone to achieve their potential and have fulfilling lives, including a secure retirement. We also believe in a robust government that does things that the people cannot do individually for ourselves to improve our quality of life. They believe in pitching in and helping each other out.
The Republicans and their corporate sponsors believe in every man for himself – the "you're on your own" theory of government and life. If you are not well off financially, they believe it is your own fault. They also do not believe corporations, businesses, etc, should be required to give any benefits, such as retirement and healthcare, to the workers. These filthy rich do not want to support their government, or their schools, or their public workers.
In other words, Republicans would like to take us back to the 19th and early 20th centuries where workers had no benefits and no rights – where the wealthy had all the power and all the rights.
As the New York Times explains, "In a year when governors across the country are competing to show who is toughest, no matter what the consequences, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin stands out as the first to bring his State Capitol to a halt." Like many governors, he wants to cut the benefits of state workers. But the Wisconsin Governor's plan goes further, he wants to take away the collective bargaining rights of public employees – which would have no impact on the state budget. They would be barred from bargaining about anything except wages, and any pay increase they win would be limited by the consumer price index. Contracts would be limited to a year, and union dues could no longer be deducted from paychecks. Gov. Walker’s goal is to destroy the workers’ union.
In the face of a vicious Republican and corporate assault on the ability of workers to negotiate for a better life, Wisconsin's workers are fighting back. They are standing up for their right to collectively bargain and they are standing up for all of us. The tenacity, courage and commitment of the protesters have been extraordinary. The community support the workers have received has been inspiring. The people of Wisconsin are making history by drawing a serious line in the sand against unbridled corporate power and Republican extremism.
At the bargaining table, the ballot box, in the halls of Congress, and wherever important policy decisions are made, unions have fought for greater opportunity and shared prosperity, for the real American dream.
Throughout our nation's history, workers and their unions have fought for better wages, benefits and scores of trailblazing workplace improvements. In the post World War II era, unionized jobs with good pay and decent health care and retirement benefits helped create and expand America's middle class. It was the promise of America: If you worked hard and played by the rules, you could get ahead. And your kids could do even better. That promise – the American Dream – has been made possible by the strength of the American labor movement and the sacrifices of countless workers and their families.
It is these different views that the battle in Wisconsin is about, beginning with worker's most basic rights. That is why teachers, correction officers, firefighters, nurses, administrative assistants, sanitation workers, social workers and so many others have banded together like never before.
Wisconsin is ground zero. If the Republicans succeed in Wisconsin, the birthplace of A.F.S.C.M.E., they will be emboldened to attack workers' rights in every state. Workers – including professional teachers, state troopers, nurses, etc, – will once again become servants and slave labor.
The workers have already indicated their willingness to negotiate by accepting the increases in their healthcare and retirement contributions (basically, a pay cut) if the Governor would be willing to not take away their right to bargain for better wages and benefits at some point down the road. But the Governor will not budge – he continues to choose his ideological agenda over the people of Wisconsin.
Today, union membership is down, unemployment is up and the current generation of young people is the first in years to expect that they won't be as well off as their parents. Enter Governor Scott Walker, Speaker of the U.S. House John Boehner, Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan and the rest of the Republicans who want an America run by and for the big corporations. Their agenda is to downsize government to dangerous levels, dismantle the public programs that keep our families safe and our communities strong, export our jobs overseas to increase corporate profits and fill their own pockets, and concentrate the nation's wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands.
These politicians are owned and operated by a powerful corporations and billionaires like the infamous Koch Brothers, who fund many right-wing front groups such as FreedomWorks, who sent people to Madison from across the country this weekend to stage counter-protests.
These politicians and organizations are part of a nationwide effort to take away collective bargaining. They are also trying to take away the important cost-saving benefits and consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act. And they want:
• Social Security to be privatized and eliminate Medicare as we know it – which will effectively kill Grandma, a point they shouted about during the healthcare debate. (They did not really care about Grandma.)
• A government that is so small, it will starve the poor, shrink the middle class, and eliminate small businesses.
• Tell you that if you become a vegetable, you have to be kept alive on machines.
• A government that looks the other way when oil companies recklessly drill offshore and mining firms operate without regard for the health and safety of their workers.
• And a government with enough power to tell a woman, her doctor and her family what to do about private healthcare decisions – basically take away the right of a woman to have an abortion if her life is in danger.
We all do better when we all do better.
Democrats and unions believe that work should be rewarded and workers treated with dignity and respect. They believe in an America where there is opportunity for everyone to achieve their potential and have fulfilling lives, including a secure retirement. We also believe in a robust government that does things that the people cannot do individually for ourselves to improve our quality of life. They believe in pitching in and helping each other out.
The Republicans and their corporate sponsors believe in every man for himself – the "you're on your own" theory of government and life. If you are not well off financially, they believe it is your own fault. They also do not believe corporations, businesses, etc, should be required to give any benefits, such as retirement and healthcare, to the workers. These filthy rich do not want to support their government, or their schools, or their public workers.
In other words, Republicans would like to take us back to the 19th and early 20th centuries where workers had no benefits and no rights – where the wealthy had all the power and all the rights.
As the New York Times explains, "In a year when governors across the country are competing to show who is toughest, no matter what the consequences, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin stands out as the first to bring his State Capitol to a halt." Like many governors, he wants to cut the benefits of state workers. But the Wisconsin Governor's plan goes further, he wants to take away the collective bargaining rights of public employees – which would have no impact on the state budget. They would be barred from bargaining about anything except wages, and any pay increase they win would be limited by the consumer price index. Contracts would be limited to a year, and union dues could no longer be deducted from paychecks. Gov. Walker’s goal is to destroy the workers’ union.
In the face of a vicious Republican and corporate assault on the ability of workers to negotiate for a better life, Wisconsin's workers are fighting back. They are standing up for their right to collectively bargain and they are standing up for all of us. The tenacity, courage and commitment of the protesters have been extraordinary. The community support the workers have received has been inspiring. The people of Wisconsin are making history by drawing a serious line in the sand against unbridled corporate power and Republican extremism.
At the bargaining table, the ballot box, in the halls of Congress, and wherever important policy decisions are made, unions have fought for greater opportunity and shared prosperity, for the real American dream.
Throughout our nation's history, workers and their unions have fought for better wages, benefits and scores of trailblazing workplace improvements. In the post World War II era, unionized jobs with good pay and decent health care and retirement benefits helped create and expand America's middle class. It was the promise of America: If you worked hard and played by the rules, you could get ahead. And your kids could do even better. That promise – the American Dream – has been made possible by the strength of the American labor movement and the sacrifices of countless workers and their families.
It is these different views that the battle in Wisconsin is about, beginning with worker's most basic rights. That is why teachers, correction officers, firefighters, nurses, administrative assistants, sanitation workers, social workers and so many others have banded together like never before.
Wisconsin is ground zero. If the Republicans succeed in Wisconsin, the birthplace of A.F.S.C.M.E., they will be emboldened to attack workers' rights in every state. Workers – including professional teachers, state troopers, nurses, etc, – will once again become servants and slave labor.
Friday, February 18, 2011
So be it?
House Speaker John Boehner – the self-avowed small government guru who last September said of the Pentagon, "There's got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there, it all ought to be eliminated" – went to the mat this past Wednesday in a desperate effort to save a multi-billion-dollar fighter jet engine project that even the Pentagon considers to be, in the words of Defense secretary Robert Gates, "an unnecessary and extravagant expense."
Boehner, who on Tuesday showed no concern about draconian Republican spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of federal workers on the street (in his words, "so be it"), the next day hypocritically sought to save a jet engine project that the Pentagon has been trying to kill since the George W. Bush era.
The "unnecessary and extravagant" project is headquartered at a General Electric plant in Ohio. The jet engine project provides jobs to 1000 people in Ohio. Without that project, there will be 1000 more people on the street in Ohio.
"We're broke," Boehner said on Tuesday – but just twenty-four hours later, he said that we are not too broke to help the workers of Ohio. Care to guess why Boehner took such a strong stand in favor of this particular wasteful spending?
That’s right. Boehner is from Ohio.
By the way, Boehner said he was fine with government worker layoffs because, in his calculation, President Obama had created "200,000" federal jobs. Wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the factual figure is roughly 58,000.)
So, Boehner, who last autumn promised "fiscal discipline," and who this week shrugged off the prospect of thousands of federal worker layoffs with "so be it," saw fit to carve out a convenient exception for his own backyard. He did not care if fiscal non-discipline was required to save Ohio workers from the privations that he is willing to visit upon everyone else.
Then "so be it" magically becomes "it will not be." It is all well and good to voice the desire to cut government spending...until the consequences of the cuts hit too close to home.
Assuming that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound and that he really believes that reduced spending will bring about a better environment for job creation in America, a more balanced budget could possibly improve the job market in the very long run. But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery.
The Washington Post reported that the $59 billion cuts for the last half of fiscal 2011 would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That is nearly 1 million jobs – possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.
And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interest for unemployment to remain high for the next two years.
"So be it" is callous but politically rational.
Boehner, who on Tuesday showed no concern about draconian Republican spending cuts that would put hundreds of thousands of federal workers on the street (in his words, "so be it"), the next day hypocritically sought to save a jet engine project that the Pentagon has been trying to kill since the George W. Bush era.
The "unnecessary and extravagant" project is headquartered at a General Electric plant in Ohio. The jet engine project provides jobs to 1000 people in Ohio. Without that project, there will be 1000 more people on the street in Ohio.
"We're broke," Boehner said on Tuesday – but just twenty-four hours later, he said that we are not too broke to help the workers of Ohio. Care to guess why Boehner took such a strong stand in favor of this particular wasteful spending?
That’s right. Boehner is from Ohio.
By the way, Boehner said he was fine with government worker layoffs because, in his calculation, President Obama had created "200,000" federal jobs. Wrong. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the factual figure is roughly 58,000.)
So, Boehner, who last autumn promised "fiscal discipline," and who this week shrugged off the prospect of thousands of federal worker layoffs with "so be it," saw fit to carve out a convenient exception for his own backyard. He did not care if fiscal non-discipline was required to save Ohio workers from the privations that he is willing to visit upon everyone else.
Then "so be it" magically becomes "it will not be." It is all well and good to voice the desire to cut government spending...until the consequences of the cuts hit too close to home.
Assuming that Boehner is not as heartless as his words sound and that he really believes that reduced spending will bring about a better environment for job creation in America, a more balanced budget could possibly improve the job market in the very long run. But in the short run, the cuts Boehner and his caucus propose would cause a shock to the economy that would slow, if not reverse, the recovery.
The Washington Post reported that the $59 billion cuts for the last half of fiscal 2011 would lead to the loss of 650,000 government jobs, and the indirect loss of 325,000 more jobs as fewer government workers travel and buy things. That is nearly 1 million jobs – possibly enough to tip the economy back into recession.
And however pure Boehner's motives may be, the dirty truth is that a stall in the recovery would bring political benefits to the Republicans in the 2012 elections. It is in their political interest for unemployment to remain high for the next two years.
"So be it" is callous but politically rational.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Republicans jumped into a tricky thicket
When Speaker John Boehner lies awake at night wondering how things in the House got so bumpy so fast, there's one person he worries about the most. It's not a triangulating Democrat or a hard right Republican. It's people like Jodine White.
Last year, Jodine took part in a New York Times/CBS poll that found 92 percent of Tea Partiers, like her, wanted smaller government. And almost three quarters of them said they would support spending cuts to get there, even if it meant cutting Social Security and Medicare. Republicans heard that message loud and clear in 2010 and ran with it, railing against the government and making bold promises about cutting it down to size. And they won.
But wait.
In follow-up interviews the Times reported, "Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security ... suggesting instead a focus on 'waste.' When asked to reconcile those findings, Jodine White said:
"That's a conundrum, isn't it?"
Well, yes, that is a conundrum.
Aren't Tea Partiers supposed to be in a rage over an America that has lost its way? Aren’t they determined to get us back to the kind of government our Founding Fathers wanted? Surely no Tea Party patriot could be distracted from that noble task by something as base as self-interest!
"I don't know what to say," Jodine explained. "Maybe I don't really want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security ... I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."
Well…there goes the revolution…
And, apparently, she is not alone. Last week, Pew released a new poll showing that while many Americans want to restrain federal spending, they are against a whole range of specific spending cuts. It is the same thing on the state level. People think state governments should cut spending to help retire huge budget deficits, but they have a hard time finding specific budget cuts that they support.
That helps explain the new Democratic strategy of trying to move the spending debate from the general to the specific. But what about all those Republicans who were elected in 2010 on angry rhetoric and solemn promises to cut spending like never before? If the internal Republican squabbles we saw last week are any indication, the elected Tea Partiers want to move full steam ahead.
It used to be so much simpler to be a Republican. You could bash government because your base (the wealthy individuals and corporations) didn't see why their tax dollars should go to support programs that had nothing to do with them. Democrats defended government because their constituency includes people who sometimes need the government programs that taxpayers fund. But in times of economic distress, Republicans can pull voters from what should be the Democratic base because anti-government rhetoric sounds appealing to people who thought government would be there when the going got tough, and then discovered it wasn't. In other words, they got mad at the government for not saving their jobs and homes – and since Obama had just won the presidency the moment the economic downturn started to sink in, then he and the Democrats got all the blame.
That was wonderful for Republicans on Election Day, but it is complicating things every day thereafter. Because when you have to translate your rhetoric into action, people who were enraged at government yesterday can switch on a dime when they realize something they like is on the chopping block.
It is like the Republicans got fooled. They thought that the message the voters were sending was: "Cut spending!" And they were eager to please. But what if their constituents are all like Jodine White – people who thought they wanted spending cuts until they realized what those cuts could do to them?
They are sending a different message now: "Cut spending! Unless it's spending that benefits me."
If they cut too much or cut the 'wrong' items, if too many Americans are directly affected, it becomes a trickier thicket for Republicans to jump into. The House Republicans could all lose their jobs in two years if they go too far with those cuts – but with the blinders they have on, they can't see it.
*Taken from: Voters Snookered Republicans on Budget Cuts, By ANSON KAYE
U.S. News & World Report
Read more: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2011/02/17/voters-snookered-republicans-on-budget-cuts
Last year, Jodine took part in a New York Times/CBS poll that found 92 percent of Tea Partiers, like her, wanted smaller government. And almost three quarters of them said they would support spending cuts to get there, even if it meant cutting Social Security and Medicare. Republicans heard that message loud and clear in 2010 and ran with it, railing against the government and making bold promises about cutting it down to size. And they won.
But wait.
In follow-up interviews the Times reported, "Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security ... suggesting instead a focus on 'waste.' When asked to reconcile those findings, Jodine White said:
"That's a conundrum, isn't it?"
Well, yes, that is a conundrum.
Aren't Tea Partiers supposed to be in a rage over an America that has lost its way? Aren’t they determined to get us back to the kind of government our Founding Fathers wanted? Surely no Tea Party patriot could be distracted from that noble task by something as base as self-interest!
"I don't know what to say," Jodine explained. "Maybe I don't really want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security ... I didn't look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I've changed my mind."
Well…there goes the revolution…
And, apparently, she is not alone. Last week, Pew released a new poll showing that while many Americans want to restrain federal spending, they are against a whole range of specific spending cuts. It is the same thing on the state level. People think state governments should cut spending to help retire huge budget deficits, but they have a hard time finding specific budget cuts that they support.
That helps explain the new Democratic strategy of trying to move the spending debate from the general to the specific. But what about all those Republicans who were elected in 2010 on angry rhetoric and solemn promises to cut spending like never before? If the internal Republican squabbles we saw last week are any indication, the elected Tea Partiers want to move full steam ahead.
It used to be so much simpler to be a Republican. You could bash government because your base (the wealthy individuals and corporations) didn't see why their tax dollars should go to support programs that had nothing to do with them. Democrats defended government because their constituency includes people who sometimes need the government programs that taxpayers fund. But in times of economic distress, Republicans can pull voters from what should be the Democratic base because anti-government rhetoric sounds appealing to people who thought government would be there when the going got tough, and then discovered it wasn't. In other words, they got mad at the government for not saving their jobs and homes – and since Obama had just won the presidency the moment the economic downturn started to sink in, then he and the Democrats got all the blame.
That was wonderful for Republicans on Election Day, but it is complicating things every day thereafter. Because when you have to translate your rhetoric into action, people who were enraged at government yesterday can switch on a dime when they realize something they like is on the chopping block.
It is like the Republicans got fooled. They thought that the message the voters were sending was: "Cut spending!" And they were eager to please. But what if their constituents are all like Jodine White – people who thought they wanted spending cuts until they realized what those cuts could do to them?
They are sending a different message now: "Cut spending! Unless it's spending that benefits me."
If they cut too much or cut the 'wrong' items, if too many Americans are directly affected, it becomes a trickier thicket for Republicans to jump into. The House Republicans could all lose their jobs in two years if they go too far with those cuts – but with the blinders they have on, they can't see it.
*Taken from: Voters Snookered Republicans on Budget Cuts, By ANSON KAYE
U.S. News & World Report
Read more: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/anson-kaye/2011/02/17/voters-snookered-republicans-on-budget-cuts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Courageous Egyptian people
I spent last week mesmerized by Egypt's extraordinary democratic revolution via CNN, MSNBC, and Al Jazeera (online English version). There were plenty of placards and chants calling for democracy and justice in Egypt – the most popular "Mubarak, Go, Go". But what was missing were the usual Middle Eastern sign or chant of "Death to America!" or "Death to Israel".
What is most telling is that the demonstrators did not denounce America, although some expressed frustration at the ambiguity of the Obama administration's statement’s about their movement. Friday night, when Mubarak finally resigned, crowds mobbed American reporters in order to tell Americans how happy they were.
This is an indigenous Egyptian movement. It is about lifting 30 years of political repression and creating economic opportunity for a new generation. America and Israel are the last things on the minds of the young Egyptian revolutionaries.
Whether the revolution leads quickly to an Egyptian democracy or whether the military form another repressive dictatorship remains to be seen. The next few weeks will tell whether the military and Mubarak's cabinet, which remains, try to maintain complete control of the transition – or whether the opposition, including the newly constituted opposition of young people who organized the street demonstrations, is allowed to share power in the transition and participate in writing a new constitution.
Having tasted the sweetness of freedom for the first time in their lives, the hundreds of thousands of Egyptians who turned out in Tahrir Square will probably not accept a military coup with minor reforms. They will insist on a meaningful democratic transition, taking to the streets again if it does not happen.
While the revolution had little to do with America and Israel on the part of the demonstrators, it does not mean it will not have an impact on America and Israel. America will have to re-evaluate its strategy of support for Middle East dictators in exchange for imaginary stability. And Israel should see this as an opportunity to renew a serious commitment to negotiating a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
The Palestinians, having seen the power of mass non-violent resistance to bring about fundamental change, would do well to back away from an ideology of armed struggle and take up a strategy of massive non-violent resistance of their own. Peaceful resistance is more likely to force concessions from Israel than rockets and suicide bombs.
"What happened in Egypt in those eighteen days was an inspiring, momentous, authentic and heroic movement to promote democracy. It was a dignified and popular uprising that started with the youth and captured the world’s imagination, and proved that it is possible for the people to overthrow a well-entrenched regime through peaceful means."
~Mohsen Milani "What happened in Egypt in those eighteen days was an inspiring, momentous, authentic and heroic movement to promote democracy. It was a dignified and popular uprising that started with the youth and captured the world’s imagination, and proved that it is possible for the people to overthrow a well-entrenched regime through peaceful means."
Congratulations to the courageous Egyptian people for maintaining their resistance in a peaceful manner and achieving the first stage of their democratic revolution.
*Mohsen Milani is professor of politics and chair of the department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Fla.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Reagan Republicans disagree with today’s GOP
For all the glowing accolades Republicans like to give to President Reagan, especially on the occasion of his 100th birthday, the truth is, if he were still around his policies would be way too liberal for today's GOP. Not that Reagan was a liberal or even that much of a moderate. His administration definitely was right of center. But that is how far to the right and how radical the modern GOP has become.
We have all heard Reagan's former budget director time and time again say tax cuts do cause deficits if not offset with spending cuts. That notion is absolutely rejected out of hand by Republicans today. Today's Republican “Patriots” think tax cuts are the answer to everything. Yet in addition to cutting some taxes, Reagan raised taxes 11 different times – an act totally unthinkable by Republicans today.
There is a constant fascination with the national debt by the GOP – because it’s politically expedient for them to focus on the debt now that they are out of power. But if you mention to them that Reagan tripled the national debt, they will insist it was because of “patriotic” reasons. They will counter that Obama has increased it by 15%, while becoming unglued and ranting like crazy people about socialism and government takeovers.
The biggest argument of the day is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) that was passed into law last year. Every elected Republican, along with every word ever spoken on Fox News, has called the Affordable Care Act “unconstitutional” because it carries a mandate that all who can afford it has to purchase insurance through private providers or pay a penalty to the government. Regardless of the fact that Republicans have touted “personal responsibility” for decades, this has caused some of the most heated arguments and moments in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. It brought us the Summer of Hate where multitudes of elected Republican members of Congress were organizing protests against the government and stirring the pot by calling the president an enemy of the state. Unfortunately it also gave us the Tea Baggers, who are still trying to figure out why everybody cannot protest government services while, at the same time, partaking in government services just like they do.
But something interesting happened yesterday in a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried, who was Reagan's SG his entire second term as president, firmly told his Republican colleagues that not only is the ACA constitutional, but the individual mandate is too.
It is extremely rare to hear a Republican say such a thing nowadays. It would cost them their career and result in being labeled a liberal by the current rightwing establishment. In listening to Fried, it was refreshing to be reminded of just how moderate Republicans used to be. That is why I, as an independent, used to vote for just as many moderate Republicans as I did moderate Democrats – but not anymore. Fried’s speech highlighted just how numbingly stupid and completely controlled today’s Republicans are by Fox News, the neoconservatives, and the Religious Right.
Again, Fried, who was one of Reagan's inner circle of advisors, is disagreeing completely with not just a policy viewpoint of the modern GOP, but disagreeing entirely with the very foundation of the modern GOP.
As much as Republicans say they adore him, Reagan would be driven out of the party these days.
We have all heard Reagan's former budget director time and time again say tax cuts do cause deficits if not offset with spending cuts. That notion is absolutely rejected out of hand by Republicans today. Today's Republican “Patriots” think tax cuts are the answer to everything. Yet in addition to cutting some taxes, Reagan raised taxes 11 different times – an act totally unthinkable by Republicans today.
There is a constant fascination with the national debt by the GOP – because it’s politically expedient for them to focus on the debt now that they are out of power. But if you mention to them that Reagan tripled the national debt, they will insist it was because of “patriotic” reasons. They will counter that Obama has increased it by 15%, while becoming unglued and ranting like crazy people about socialism and government takeovers.
The biggest argument of the day is the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) that was passed into law last year. Every elected Republican, along with every word ever spoken on Fox News, has called the Affordable Care Act “unconstitutional” because it carries a mandate that all who can afford it has to purchase insurance through private providers or pay a penalty to the government. Regardless of the fact that Republicans have touted “personal responsibility” for decades, this has caused some of the most heated arguments and moments in America since the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s. It brought us the Summer of Hate where multitudes of elected Republican members of Congress were organizing protests against the government and stirring the pot by calling the president an enemy of the state. Unfortunately it also gave us the Tea Baggers, who are still trying to figure out why everybody cannot protest government services while, at the same time, partaking in government services just like they do.
But something interesting happened yesterday in a Senate hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Former Solicitor General Charles Fried, who was Reagan's SG his entire second term as president, firmly told his Republican colleagues that not only is the ACA constitutional, but the individual mandate is too.
It is extremely rare to hear a Republican say such a thing nowadays. It would cost them their career and result in being labeled a liberal by the current rightwing establishment. In listening to Fried, it was refreshing to be reminded of just how moderate Republicans used to be. That is why I, as an independent, used to vote for just as many moderate Republicans as I did moderate Democrats – but not anymore. Fried’s speech highlighted just how numbingly stupid and completely controlled today’s Republicans are by Fox News, the neoconservatives, and the Religious Right.
Again, Fried, who was one of Reagan's inner circle of advisors, is disagreeing completely with not just a policy viewpoint of the modern GOP, but disagreeing entirely with the very foundation of the modern GOP.
As much as Republicans say they adore him, Reagan would be driven out of the party these days.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Is Egyptian-Israeli peace in danger?
The uprising against the Mubarak regime raises the specter of a strategic nightmare: collapse of the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. That is not the inevitable outcome – a modified version of the Mubarak government could survive and retain the "cold peace" with Israel. But if, in a worst case scenario, democratic or Islamic forces were to come to power denouncing Israel and repudiating the peace deal, that could herald the resurrection of a major military threat on Israel's southern border.
Mubarak has served as a bulwark against regional chaos and for decades has been a central pillar of American strategy against the radical forces led by Iran. Instead of democracy in Egypt, the world could end up with a two-stage revolutionary process – an initial quasi-democracy, overtaken within months by the emergence of an autocratic Islamic republic under the heel of the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be similar to what happened when the United States supported pro-democracy forces against the Shah in Iran in the 1970s, only to see the emergence of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs. Moreover, in the event of an eventual Muslim Brotherhood victory, the big regional winner would be fundamentalist Iran.
For Israel, the main strategic significance of the peace with Egypt is that it has been able to take the threat of full-scale war against its strongest foe out of the military equation. But a hostile regime change in Cairo could compel Israel to rethink its military strategy, restructure its combat forces, and, in general, build a bigger army. It could also mean that Egypt would be aiding and abetting the radical Hamas regime in neighboring Gaza, rather than, as at present, helping to contain it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has merely reaffirmed Israel's desire to preserve regional stability. But it is safe to assume that his government would be relieved to see power remaining in the hands of Egypt's current ruling elite through a peaceful handover to Mubarak's recently appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman.
The hope is that Suleiman, the former head of Egypt's intelligence services and a major player in everything related to Egyptian-Israeli ties, would be able to continue Egypt's pro-Western alignment and its support for the peace deal with Israel, while allowing democracy in Egypt and pre-empting the rise of an Islamic republic.
However the events in Egypt play out, they will clearly have an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The very notion of a threat to the peace with Egypt will almost certainly further reduce the Netanyahu government's readiness to take risks for peace. In a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem on Monday, Netanyahu re-emphasized the importance he attaches to the security element in any peace package "in case the peace unravels."
The uprising in Egypt seems to be reinforcing both sides of the Israeli political divide in their core beliefs. The right is already saying that Israel should not make peace unless it can be assured of ironclad security arrangements, and the left maintains that if only Israel had already made peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world, then popular unrest such as the protests in Egypt would not be potentially so earth-shattering.
Either way, the events in Egypt may not be good news for those advocating Israeli-Arab peace.
Mubarak has served as a bulwark against regional chaos and for decades has been a central pillar of American strategy against the radical forces led by Iran. Instead of democracy in Egypt, the world could end up with a two-stage revolutionary process – an initial quasi-democracy, overtaken within months by the emergence of an autocratic Islamic republic under the heel of the Muslim Brotherhood. It would be similar to what happened when the United States supported pro-democracy forces against the Shah in Iran in the 1970s, only to see the emergence of the fundamentalist Ayatollahs. Moreover, in the event of an eventual Muslim Brotherhood victory, the big regional winner would be fundamentalist Iran.
For Israel, the main strategic significance of the peace with Egypt is that it has been able to take the threat of full-scale war against its strongest foe out of the military equation. But a hostile regime change in Cairo could compel Israel to rethink its military strategy, restructure its combat forces, and, in general, build a bigger army. It could also mean that Egypt would be aiding and abetting the radical Hamas regime in neighboring Gaza, rather than, as at present, helping to contain it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has merely reaffirmed Israel's desire to preserve regional stability. But it is safe to assume that his government would be relieved to see power remaining in the hands of Egypt's current ruling elite through a peaceful handover to Mubarak's recently appointed vice president, Omar Suleiman.
The hope is that Suleiman, the former head of Egypt's intelligence services and a major player in everything related to Egyptian-Israeli ties, would be able to continue Egypt's pro-Western alignment and its support for the peace deal with Israel, while allowing democracy in Egypt and pre-empting the rise of an Islamic republic.
However the events in Egypt play out, they will clearly have an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The very notion of a threat to the peace with Egypt will almost certainly further reduce the Netanyahu government's readiness to take risks for peace. In a news conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Jerusalem on Monday, Netanyahu re-emphasized the importance he attaches to the security element in any peace package "in case the peace unravels."
The uprising in Egypt seems to be reinforcing both sides of the Israeli political divide in their core beliefs. The right is already saying that Israel should not make peace unless it can be assured of ironclad security arrangements, and the left maintains that if only Israel had already made peace with the Palestinians and the Arab world, then popular unrest such as the protests in Egypt would not be potentially so earth-shattering.
Either way, the events in Egypt may not be good news for those advocating Israeli-Arab peace.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Playing the victim
In her Youtube video put out just after the Tucson shootings, Palin said that we cannot blame her toxic political rhetoric. But then she quite foolishly and voluntarily gave us something we can hang our hats on: In a unfortunate use of the words "blood," "pistols" and "shooting" to accent her points and the use of outrageously offensive timing in terms of releasing it on the same day as the memorial, she showed a shocking lack of empathy, sensitivity, and compassion.
Palin denounced the "manufacture of a blood libel," which adds an extra level of vitriol. Not only did it demonstrate a pathological narcissism on her part, but total ignorance that the phrase “blood libel” has a terrible history. Copy-cat Palin picked up on the term “blood libel” from a right wingnut’s op-ed. Obviously, she liked the way the phrase sounded and never bothered to look it up. It refers to the scurrilous accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood to prepare Passover matzo. Charges of blood libel have spurred massacres of Jews throughout centuries; the myth was revived by Hitler and persists today from Russia to the Arab world.
The tone of Ms. Palin’s message was not appropriate for a moment of national grief. She could have used the opportunity to try to elevate the discourse, but, instead, she further coarsened it. She is acting true to her character in lashing out at critics and presenting herself as an aggrieved victim.
Reading from a teleprompter, Palin obviously took time to consider and craft her remarks. Yet she missed an opportunity to be seen as a leader. Did she really think that her 8-minute diatribe helps to heal a shocked and grieving nation? It certainly did nothing to repair her image as an incendiary politician. Her behavior, tone, and overall message in her video are beyond comprehension and – to use one of her words – reprehensible.
At a time when the country is looking for words that heal, Palin chose to do what she does best: attack and provoke. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black because Palin does exactly what she accuses the media of doing – and she is one of those who are responsible for the coarsening of our public culture.
Sarah’s video validates once again that Sarah Palin is all about Sarah Palin. Wallowing in her own narcissism, she refuses to shoulder any responsibility for her words and actions. She sees herself as the victim of the Tucson shootings in a profoundly distorted view of reality when the true victims, the six Americans murdered just a few days ago had not yet been buried and the fourteen other victims, with lives forever altered, lay wounded recovering in hospitals.
This week has given politicians and the media an opportunity to reflect on the quality of discussion and debate in this country today – and many have – but not Sarah. Sadly, self-reflection is not one of Sarah Palin’s character traits.
Maybe Palin has finally crashed – and hopefully burned. In a perfect world, she would not politically recover from this faux pas. Although she will always be a national hero to the ignorant right-wing fringe crazies, it is my hope that on a national level, as a serious presidential candidate, she may have just imploded – unless too many in this nation forget her self-serving words about the Tucson shooting.
Sarah Palin is once again playing the victim.
Palin denounced the "manufacture of a blood libel," which adds an extra level of vitriol. Not only did it demonstrate a pathological narcissism on her part, but total ignorance that the phrase “blood libel” has a terrible history. Copy-cat Palin picked up on the term “blood libel” from a right wingnut’s op-ed. Obviously, she liked the way the phrase sounded and never bothered to look it up. It refers to the scurrilous accusation that Jews kidnapped and murdered Christian children to use their blood to prepare Passover matzo. Charges of blood libel have spurred massacres of Jews throughout centuries; the myth was revived by Hitler and persists today from Russia to the Arab world.
The tone of Ms. Palin’s message was not appropriate for a moment of national grief. She could have used the opportunity to try to elevate the discourse, but, instead, she further coarsened it. She is acting true to her character in lashing out at critics and presenting herself as an aggrieved victim.
Reading from a teleprompter, Palin obviously took time to consider and craft her remarks. Yet she missed an opportunity to be seen as a leader. Did she really think that her 8-minute diatribe helps to heal a shocked and grieving nation? It certainly did nothing to repair her image as an incendiary politician. Her behavior, tone, and overall message in her video are beyond comprehension and – to use one of her words – reprehensible.
At a time when the country is looking for words that heal, Palin chose to do what she does best: attack and provoke. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black because Palin does exactly what she accuses the media of doing – and she is one of those who are responsible for the coarsening of our public culture.
Sarah’s video validates once again that Sarah Palin is all about Sarah Palin. Wallowing in her own narcissism, she refuses to shoulder any responsibility for her words and actions. She sees herself as the victim of the Tucson shootings in a profoundly distorted view of reality when the true victims, the six Americans murdered just a few days ago had not yet been buried and the fourteen other victims, with lives forever altered, lay wounded recovering in hospitals.
This week has given politicians and the media an opportunity to reflect on the quality of discussion and debate in this country today – and many have – but not Sarah. Sadly, self-reflection is not one of Sarah Palin’s character traits.
Maybe Palin has finally crashed – and hopefully burned. In a perfect world, she would not politically recover from this faux pas. Although she will always be a national hero to the ignorant right-wing fringe crazies, it is my hope that on a national level, as a serious presidential candidate, she may have just imploded – unless too many in this nation forget her self-serving words about the Tucson shooting.
Sarah Palin is once again playing the victim.
Words have consequences
Conservative bloggers and pundits have been shocked at the notion that some of their movement’s biggest loudmouths should shoulder some responsibility for the young man accused of killing six people at a political event on Saturday, January 8, in Tucson and nearly succeeding in assassinating Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Rarely have I seen such a desperate attempt to evade reality as has occurred since the shooting rampage in Tucson. It would seem to be a fairly non-controversial notion that when a politician is targeted for assassination, the language that contributes to hostile discord ought to be carefully considered and avoided. However, mentioning that issue has caused politicians and pundits on the right to stiffen, deny, and go on offense. Could this be because they are harboring a latent guilt?
“Me thinks they doth protest too much.” And anyone who has studied Hamlet knows that if someone protests too much, then they are harboring guilt. (You have studied Hamlet haven't you? It was taught in my high school.)
Republicans and Tea Partiers shouldn’t be surprised or offended that their party and movement are taking criticism in connection with the Tucson killing spree. Beyond the shooter's possible mental illness, the real cause of the Tucson violence would seem to be the fear, ignorance, and anger that have become commonplace in the American public dialogue. Loughner chose as his target a centrist Democratic congresswoman who had criticized Arizona’s draconian immigration law and supported healthcare reform, taking positions in direct opposition to the Tea Party and Republican base.
In effect, he chose political sides by the choice of his target, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
It really does not matter that the man who finally made good on the thousands of threats received during the last year by American politicians is mentally ill. What matters is that the pundits, the politicians, and the shameless men and women of all political persuasions, who screamed and shouted and distorted the truth in order to raise and sway a mob, showed disdain for our nation – which can push the mentally unbalanced into action. The rancid political climate easily feeds into the despair of the mentally unbalanced. Insane people tend to be driven by obsessions and delusions and a general sense of despair.
It was no surprise that Rush Limbaugh rose to defend himself and other right-wing propagandists against the idea that they bear some responsibility for the shooting tragedy in Arizona. Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and those like them overlook a simple, logical conundrum:
If, as they frequently like to claim, they are the motivators who brought about the conservative resurgence in November’s elections with their inflammatory and rabble-rousing anti-Democratic rhetoric, then how can they be so sure that they did not have a part in motivating this incident or others of lesser crime against Democrats?
Some will say such risk is inherent with our right to free speech. But as most appreciate, free speech does not entitle one to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no blaze. It is similarly reckless when Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck label any who opposes their politics as traitorous Nazis, Fascists, or Commies who want to take over our nation. They have to be fully aware that the average uninformed person believes them – and that a crazy, schizophrenic person could act on it.
Although it is not yet known whether he had leanings toward any political group, Jared Loughner’s Youtube rhetoric did lean to the right with Glenn Beck (gold for U.S. currency) and Michelle Bachman (the government is using mind control). He also had reading material that leaned about as far left as one could get (Communist Manifesto). But by all accounts, Loughner is an avowed, although incoherent, constitutionalist, using the document as a bludgeon to argue a variety of issues – just like the Tea Partiers. He reportedly accused his community college of violating the Constitution by forcing him to retake a math class – and insisted that a syllabus was unconstitutional. Where had he heard all this “unconstitutional” talk?
All the violent language, all the hatred, made the political climate in America ripe for a violent act. The fact that Loughner was apparently mentally ill does not mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event having nothing to do with the national political climate. Unless he lived in a bubble, he saw and heard it all. In fact, the climate that pervades the United States is one where political violence is glorified – and violent rhetoric exists with particular intensity in Arizona.
Unbalanced people are emboldened to action by the incendiary rhetoric we hear day in and day out. It gave the perpetrator permission to act.
It is a fact that many attacks on Democrats in the last year were motivated by such talk, including the vandalizing of Ms. Giffords’ office (and those of a number of other Democratic congressmen) after the health care vote, threatening the bill’s supporters, and using ugly imagery such as the placement of a coffin in the yard of a Democrat who voted for the bill or hanging another Democrat in effigy. Add that to the fact that if you go back to the 2008 campaign, there were large crowds of Republican voters at Palin rallies shouting “Kill him” about Obama – while she, in turn, said that he “palled around with terrorists.” Not to be outdone, Democrat Hillary Clinton brought up the idea that Obama may be a secret Muslim which scared the stuffing out of common folk. Many on the right, such as Limbaugh, picked up that ball and ran with it, charging that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.
When GOP leaders encouraged the falsehood that health care reform would include the creation of death panels; when Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina disrespectfully yelled “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress on health care reform; and when Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas yelled “Baby killer” at Rep. Bart Stupak during the floor debate on the bill, the Republicans all but said that the stakes were so extreme that they warranted extreme measures.
In an MSNBC interview in March 2010, Giffords said that Palin had put the “crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” adding that “when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.” Chuck Todd then asked Giffords if “in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years.” She responded that colleagues who had been in the House “20, 30 years” had never seen vitriol this bad. But Todd moved on. Few wanted to see what Giffords saw – that the vandalism and death threats were the latest consequences of a tide of ugly insurrectionism that had been rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign and that had threatened to turn violent from the start.
The rhetoric employed by Sarah Palin and those like her is so anti-democratic in its spirit that it should, and it does, leave many conservatives feeling queasy. Her speeches are an incitement to violence – which technically is treason. The statements like the "second amendment solution" put forth by Sharron Angle, “Get on Target for Victory” by Kelly, “Don’t retreat…Reload” by Palin and other violent statements like these turned our nation’s politics into a blood sport. The Palin message on her Facebook page was: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"
Palin’s message is a symptom of the tone in US politics. Palin had published a “target map” on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for backing the new health care law. Putting a bull’s eye on Gabrielle Giffords' congressional race – as Sarah Palin did – was an explicit or intentional invitation to violence. Palin took her bull’s eye webpage down after the shooting. And Sarah Palin did call these marks “bull’s eyes” at one time – although she is now trying to deny it.
Jesse Kelly, the Republican (Tea Partier) whom Giffords beat, was another possible reason her assassin went after her. His "Get on Target for Victory" rallies were all about violent language. Here is a copy of the Get on Target for Victory rally – and also a picture of Jesse Kelly, the man who sponsored it while running against Gifford. It says "Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office… Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly":
Leaders in the Republican Party and the Tea Party movement have spoken out against Saturday’s violence, but that rings hollow after their failure to condemn the political rhetoric of violence such as "take up your arms/don’t retreat – reload" rhetoric by Sarah Palin or the hatred spewed by Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. They are excusing their own horrible culpability by saying that the Democrats did it, too. It is true that Democrats have not been completely innocent of using language that could be construed as violent. But there is no doubt that most of the vitriolic language over the last three years has come from right wing mouths and from right wing pens. The anger has been much more pervasive and more white-hot on the right: "Don't retreat, instead -- reload" or "Second Amendment remedies" "Take our country back" or "Terrorist, Fascist, Nazi…Kill him" and "Obama is a secret Muslim."
What is more disturbing is what Republican and conservative leaders have not said over the last three years. Their continuing silence during simmering violence has been chilling. A few unexpected voices have expressed alarm. After an antigovernment gunman struck at Washington’s Holocaust museum in June 2009, Shepard Smith of Fox News noted the rising vitriol in his e-mail traffic and warned on air that more “amped up” Americans could be “getting the gun out.” But most Republican leaders encouraged violent rhetoric from people who believe "Obama's going to take everyone's guns away" or "Obama's going to put everyone in concentration camps" or the President of the United States "pals around with terrorists" and is a secret Muslim not born in this country.
The hate and disinformation on FOX has also helped to dumb down our democracy, making a serious national discussion about anything important too “elitist”. The FOX media pundits prefer slogans and short, one-sentence made-up “facts” that fit their world view. Framing themselves as taking part in a revolution gives the impression of violent overthrow – and their sheep repeat the “facts” over and over, getting angrier and angrier – and many far right politicians have been complicit through participation.
It is time for the right wing to “man up” and take responsibility for the political tone they set during 2008 and that has continued into this year. But they don’t. Instead, they childishly point their fingers at the Democrats and shout “they did it, too!” If politicians on both the hard right and the far left constantly use violent rhetoric to stir up opposition to their adversaries, then they are responsible for the crazy people who take their urgings seriously.
Actual violence toward a Democrat was bound to happen at some point. As one blogger wrote: "YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING THE DRUM FOR YEARS, NOW YOU ACT SUPRISED WHEN SOMEONE GETS UP TO DANCE!?"
In her “blood libel” video, Palin asked, “When was it less heated — back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?” She’s right. A large swath of the United States is still the Wild West. The U.S. has about 4 times more guns per capita than any other nation – often with tens of guns in a household. Calls for civility will have no more lasting impact on the “tone” of American discourse now than they did after the J.F.K. assassination or Oklahoma City. But the fact that the United States has a history of violent politics does not make it okay. It has always been wrong.
Words have consequences, rhetoric shapes reality, and much as we like to believe that we are creatures of reason, there is something about a crazed person’s irrational fantasies that makes him all too easily pushed into deadly action. For the past three years, it is the inflammatory words on the hard right that are stirring up the murderous crazies in our country.
This shooting presented an opportunity for all on the hard right and far left to reflect on the consequences of the tone of discussion and debate in this country – because in order for democracies to function there must be mutual respect among rivals. Some did just that. But the hate toward President Obama (by about one-quarter of our country's population) is a festering boil that will once again, very shortly, cause the atmosphere to be highly contentious.
The words you choose do matter!
“The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.” - Will Rogers
“Me thinks they doth protest too much.” And anyone who has studied Hamlet knows that if someone protests too much, then they are harboring guilt. (You have studied Hamlet haven't you? It was taught in my high school.)
Republicans and Tea Partiers shouldn’t be surprised or offended that their party and movement are taking criticism in connection with the Tucson killing spree. Beyond the shooter's possible mental illness, the real cause of the Tucson violence would seem to be the fear, ignorance, and anger that have become commonplace in the American public dialogue. Loughner chose as his target a centrist Democratic congresswoman who had criticized Arizona’s draconian immigration law and supported healthcare reform, taking positions in direct opposition to the Tea Party and Republican base.
In effect, he chose political sides by the choice of his target, Democrat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.
It really does not matter that the man who finally made good on the thousands of threats received during the last year by American politicians is mentally ill. What matters is that the pundits, the politicians, and the shameless men and women of all political persuasions, who screamed and shouted and distorted the truth in order to raise and sway a mob, showed disdain for our nation – which can push the mentally unbalanced into action. The rancid political climate easily feeds into the despair of the mentally unbalanced. Insane people tend to be driven by obsessions and delusions and a general sense of despair.
It was no surprise that Rush Limbaugh rose to defend himself and other right-wing propagandists against the idea that they bear some responsibility for the shooting tragedy in Arizona. Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and those like them overlook a simple, logical conundrum:
If, as they frequently like to claim, they are the motivators who brought about the conservative resurgence in November’s elections with their inflammatory and rabble-rousing anti-Democratic rhetoric, then how can they be so sure that they did not have a part in motivating this incident or others of lesser crime against Democrats?
Some will say such risk is inherent with our right to free speech. But as most appreciate, free speech does not entitle one to shout “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no blaze. It is similarly reckless when Palin, Hannity, Limbaugh, or Beck label any who opposes their politics as traitorous Nazis, Fascists, or Commies who want to take over our nation. They have to be fully aware that the average uninformed person believes them – and that a crazy, schizophrenic person could act on it.
Although it is not yet known whether he had leanings toward any political group, Jared Loughner’s Youtube rhetoric did lean to the right with Glenn Beck (gold for U.S. currency) and Michelle Bachman (the government is using mind control). He also had reading material that leaned about as far left as one could get (Communist Manifesto). But by all accounts, Loughner is an avowed, although incoherent, constitutionalist, using the document as a bludgeon to argue a variety of issues – just like the Tea Partiers. He reportedly accused his community college of violating the Constitution by forcing him to retake a math class – and insisted that a syllabus was unconstitutional. Where had he heard all this “unconstitutional” talk?
All the violent language, all the hatred, made the political climate in America ripe for a violent act. The fact that Loughner was apparently mentally ill does not mean that his act can or should be treated as an isolated event having nothing to do with the national political climate. Unless he lived in a bubble, he saw and heard it all. In fact, the climate that pervades the United States is one where political violence is glorified – and violent rhetoric exists with particular intensity in Arizona.
Unbalanced people are emboldened to action by the incendiary rhetoric we hear day in and day out. It gave the perpetrator permission to act.
It is a fact that many attacks on Democrats in the last year were motivated by such talk, including the vandalizing of Ms. Giffords’ office (and those of a number of other Democratic congressmen) after the health care vote, threatening the bill’s supporters, and using ugly imagery such as the placement of a coffin in the yard of a Democrat who voted for the bill or hanging another Democrat in effigy. Add that to the fact that if you go back to the 2008 campaign, there were large crowds of Republican voters at Palin rallies shouting “Kill him” about Obama – while she, in turn, said that he “palled around with terrorists.” Not to be outdone, Democrat Hillary Clinton brought up the idea that Obama may be a secret Muslim which scared the stuffing out of common folk. Many on the right, such as Limbaugh, picked up that ball and ran with it, charging that Obama is a foreign-born Muslim.
When GOP leaders encouraged the falsehood that health care reform would include the creation of death panels; when Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina disrespectfully yelled “You lie!” during President Barack Obama’s address to Congress on health care reform; and when Rep. Randy Neugebauer of Texas yelled “Baby killer” at Rep. Bart Stupak during the floor debate on the bill, the Republicans all but said that the stakes were so extreme that they warranted extreme measures.
In an MSNBC interview in March 2010, Giffords said that Palin had put the “crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” adding that “when people do that, they’ve got to realize there’s consequences to that action.” Chuck Todd then asked Giffords if “in fairness, campaign rhetoric and war rhetoric have been interchangeable for years.” She responded that colleagues who had been in the House “20, 30 years” had never seen vitriol this bad. But Todd moved on. Few wanted to see what Giffords saw – that the vandalism and death threats were the latest consequences of a tide of ugly insurrectionism that had been rising since the final weeks of the 2008 campaign and that had threatened to turn violent from the start.
The rhetoric employed by Sarah Palin and those like her is so anti-democratic in its spirit that it should, and it does, leave many conservatives feeling queasy. Her speeches are an incitement to violence – which technically is treason. The statements like the "second amendment solution" put forth by Sharron Angle, “Get on Target for Victory” by Kelly, “Don’t retreat…Reload” by Palin and other violent statements like these turned our nation’s politics into a blood sport. The Palin message on her Facebook page was: "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"
Palin’s message is a symptom of the tone in US politics. Palin had published a “target map” on her website using images of gun sights to identify 20 House Democrats, including Giffords, for backing the new health care law. Putting a bull’s eye on Gabrielle Giffords' congressional race – as Sarah Palin did – was an explicit or intentional invitation to violence. Palin took her bull’s eye webpage down after the shooting. And Sarah Palin did call these marks “bull’s eyes” at one time – although she is now trying to deny it.
What is more disturbing is what Republican and conservative leaders have not said over the last three years. Their continuing silence during simmering violence has been chilling. A few unexpected voices have expressed alarm. After an antigovernment gunman struck at Washington’s Holocaust museum in June 2009, Shepard Smith of Fox News noted the rising vitriol in his e-mail traffic and warned on air that more “amped up” Americans could be “getting the gun out.” But most Republican leaders encouraged violent rhetoric from people who believe "Obama's going to take everyone's guns away" or "Obama's going to put everyone in concentration camps" or the President of the United States "pals around with terrorists" and is a secret Muslim not born in this country.
The hate and disinformation on FOX has also helped to dumb down our democracy, making a serious national discussion about anything important too “elitist”. The FOX media pundits prefer slogans and short, one-sentence made-up “facts” that fit their world view. Framing themselves as taking part in a revolution gives the impression of violent overthrow – and their sheep repeat the “facts” over and over, getting angrier and angrier – and many far right politicians have been complicit through participation.
It is time for the right wing to “man up” and take responsibility for the political tone they set during 2008 and that has continued into this year. But they don’t. Instead, they childishly point their fingers at the Democrats and shout “they did it, too!” If politicians on both the hard right and the far left constantly use violent rhetoric to stir up opposition to their adversaries, then they are responsible for the crazy people who take their urgings seriously.
Actual violence toward a Democrat was bound to happen at some point. As one blogger wrote: "YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN BEATING THE DRUM FOR YEARS, NOW YOU ACT SUPRISED WHEN SOMEONE GETS UP TO DANCE!?"
In her “blood libel” video, Palin asked, “When was it less heated — back in those calm days when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols?” She’s right. A large swath of the United States is still the Wild West. The U.S. has about 4 times more guns per capita than any other nation – often with tens of guns in a household. Calls for civility will have no more lasting impact on the “tone” of American discourse now than they did after the J.F.K. assassination or Oklahoma City. But the fact that the United States has a history of violent politics does not make it okay. It has always been wrong.
Words have consequences, rhetoric shapes reality, and much as we like to believe that we are creatures of reason, there is something about a crazed person’s irrational fantasies that makes him all too easily pushed into deadly action. For the past three years, it is the inflammatory words on the hard right that are stirring up the murderous crazies in our country.
This shooting presented an opportunity for all on the hard right and far left to reflect on the consequences of the tone of discussion and debate in this country – because in order for democracies to function there must be mutual respect among rivals. Some did just that. But the hate toward President Obama (by about one-quarter of our country's population) is a festering boil that will once again, very shortly, cause the atmosphere to be highly contentious.
The words you choose do matter!
“The short memories of American voters is what keeps our politicians in office.” - Will Rogers
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Repealing healthcare adds billions of dollars to the deficit
House Republicans are in a pickle: Repealing health-care reform would cost hundreds of billions of dollars -- and Eric Cantor knows it. One of the new rules set forth by the House Republican majority says that new legislation must be paid for. But the health-care bill reduces the federal deficit by more than $100 billion over the next 10 years. Luckily, they've figured out an answer to their problem: They've decided to simply exempt the repeal bill from the rules. That means they're beginning the 112th Congress by lifting their own rules in order to take a vote that will increase the deficit. Change we can believe in, and all that.
Republicans are aware that this looks, well, horrible. So they're trying to explain why their decision to lift the rule requiring fiscal responsibility is actually fiscally responsible. Majority Leader Eric Cantor got asked about this, and he returned the reporter's serve with a volley of nonsense. "About the budget implications, I think most people understand that the CBO did the job it was asked to do by the then-Democrat majority, and it was really comparing apples to oranges,” Cantor said. “It talked about 10 years' worth of tax hikes and six years' worth of benefits. Everyone knows beyond the 10-year window, this bill has the potential to bankrupt this federal government as well as the states."
That's all well and good -- but it's not true. Take Cantor's core point: The health-care reform bill includes "10 years' worth of tax hikes and six years' worth of benefits." There's nothing philosophical about this statement. It can be checked with a simple look at the spending tables the Congressional Budget Office published in their analysis of the bill. And when you look at those tables, Cantor's statement falls apart:
Roughly speaking, new spending is what counts as "benefits." New taxes are the turquoise bar at the bottom. In years one, two, and three, new benefits are larger than new taxes. In year four, that's not true, but the difference is fairly small. And in the six years after that, even Cantor admits the benefits match or overwhelm the taxes.
Mr. "Fiscal Responsibility" Cantor is lying through his teeth.
from an article by Ezra Klein
Republicans are aware that this looks, well, horrible. So they're trying to explain why their decision to lift the rule requiring fiscal responsibility is actually fiscally responsible. Majority Leader Eric Cantor got asked about this, and he returned the reporter's serve with a volley of nonsense. "About the budget implications, I think most people understand that the CBO did the job it was asked to do by the then-Democrat majority, and it was really comparing apples to oranges,” Cantor said. “It talked about 10 years' worth of tax hikes and six years' worth of benefits. Everyone knows beyond the 10-year window, this bill has the potential to bankrupt this federal government as well as the states."
That's all well and good -- but it's not true. Take Cantor's core point: The health-care reform bill includes "10 years' worth of tax hikes and six years' worth of benefits." There's nothing philosophical about this statement. It can be checked with a simple look at the spending tables the Congressional Budget Office published in their analysis of the bill. And when you look at those tables, Cantor's statement falls apart:
Roughly speaking, new spending is what counts as "benefits." New taxes are the turquoise bar at the bottom. In years one, two, and three, new benefits are larger than new taxes. In year four, that's not true, but the difference is fairly small. And in the six years after that, even Cantor admits the benefits match or overwhelm the taxes.
Mr. "Fiscal Responsibility" Cantor is lying through his teeth.
from an article by Ezra Klein
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Cookie-cutter Republicanism
Republicans like to say, “We don't have a deficit problem, we have a spending problem.” So we shouldn't be surprised that according to the new rules passed in the Republican House, it'll be no problem for the GOP to cut taxes without paying for them. But that's a problem!
Congress's PAYGO ("pay as you go") rules generally require the government to pay for changes to mandatory spending -- such as entitlements, welfare, farm subsidies, and veterans spending -- with tax increases or spending cuts. But in Boehner's House, PAYGO is replaced with CUTGO ("cut as you go rule"), which says the government has to pay for spending increases, but not tax cuts.
That means that if I want to create a new spending program to give sick low-income families money, I have to cut some other program. But, if I want to create a new tax break to give low-income families the same amount of money, I don't have to do anything even if it costs ten times more.
House Republicans apply the same tax-cuts-don't-add-to-the-deficit philosophy in their new reconciliation rules. Reconciliation, which was used to pass the health care overhaul, makes it easier for majorities to pass controversial bills. In the last Congress, reconciliation could only pass bills that reduce the deficit within ten years. In the new House rules, reconciliation cannot be used to pass a bill that increases spending by a dollar, but (guess where this is going?) it can be used to pass a bill that increases the deficit through dramatic tax increases.
After stacking the deck in favor of tax cuts, the new House rules give Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan unprecedented authority to set spending levels for the coming year. Ryan has promised more than $100 billion in spending cuts over the next twelve months -- which Democrats and the White House will almost certainly oppose.
Finally, House Republicans have been adamant about repealing health care reform, which was scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit by $143 billion. How can the House pass a bill that increases the deficit? By creating an "explicit exemption" in their rules for health care repeal.
This is cookie-cutter Republicanism, but it isn't serious deficit reduction policy.
Quoted from: “Do the New House Rules Doom the Deficit?” by Derek Thompson
Go here to read the remainder of the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/do-the-new-house-rules-doom-the-deficit/68957/
Congress's PAYGO ("pay as you go") rules generally require the government to pay for changes to mandatory spending -- such as entitlements, welfare, farm subsidies, and veterans spending -- with tax increases or spending cuts. But in Boehner's House, PAYGO is replaced with CUTGO ("cut as you go rule"), which says the government has to pay for spending increases, but not tax cuts.
That means that if I want to create a new spending program to give sick low-income families money, I have to cut some other program. But, if I want to create a new tax break to give low-income families the same amount of money, I don't have to do anything even if it costs ten times more.
House Republicans apply the same tax-cuts-don't-add-to-the-deficit philosophy in their new reconciliation rules. Reconciliation, which was used to pass the health care overhaul, makes it easier for majorities to pass controversial bills. In the last Congress, reconciliation could only pass bills that reduce the deficit within ten years. In the new House rules, reconciliation cannot be used to pass a bill that increases spending by a dollar, but (guess where this is going?) it can be used to pass a bill that increases the deficit through dramatic tax increases.
After stacking the deck in favor of tax cuts, the new House rules give Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan unprecedented authority to set spending levels for the coming year. Ryan has promised more than $100 billion in spending cuts over the next twelve months -- which Democrats and the White House will almost certainly oppose.
Finally, House Republicans have been adamant about repealing health care reform, which was scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit by $143 billion. How can the House pass a bill that increases the deficit? By creating an "explicit exemption" in their rules for health care repeal.
This is cookie-cutter Republicanism, but it isn't serious deficit reduction policy.
Quoted from: “Do the New House Rules Doom the Deficit?” by Derek Thompson
Go here to read the remainder of the article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/01/do-the-new-house-rules-doom-the-deficit/68957/
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Waking up to the truth
In a Washington Post editorial, the editorial board seems to be just shocked to discover that the incoming Republicans were not the least bit serious about deficit reduction. Washington Post: “ARE HOUSE Republicans serious about dealing with the deficit? You could listen to their rhetoric – or you could read the rules they are poised to adopt at the start of the new Congress. The former promises a new fiscal sobriety. The latter suggests that the new GOP majority is determined to continue the spree of unaffordable tax-cutting….”
Gee…Who could have known?
But when the White House struck its deal to extend the top-bracket tax cuts, the WaPo editors were incredibly enthusiastic. In a Dec. 23 editorial, they gushed about December's good cheer: the "president and lawmakers have every reason to feel good about the closing weeks of the 111th Congress" and that the tax-cut deal specifically was an "achievement to be celebrated." No mention was made at the time at the way that same tax cut deal added to the deficits, because the glorious bipartisanship on display trumped all of those practical considerations.
The gullibility of the media on all this amounts to journalistic malpractice because they should have reminded people of Republican history. Republicans have, after all, been the party of fiscal irresponsibility since 1980 as confirmed by the Reagan administration tripling the deficit during the eight years it was in office and by the George W. Bush administration when unfunded tax cuts became the main party focus.
Then along comes a Democratic president who presides over just two years of deficits in the immediate aftermath of a severe financial crisis – which is a time when you’re actually supposed to run deficits. Republicans begin protesting vehemently against the evils of red ink – and, incredibly, the media, especially the right wing media, believes them.
If you actually paid attention to what leading Republicans were saying, their lack of seriousness was totally obvious. For example, the Ryan plan claimed to reduce the deficit; but, if you actually looked into it at all, it relied completely on magic (read the asterisks). Another example is the declarations by top Republicans that deficits are terrible but there is no need to offset the cost of the Bush tax cuts.
The idea that Republicans are allowed to pose as deficit hawks is stunning. Oh, and for those claiming that Republicans have always said that spending, not deficits, is what matters: this is very much revisionist history. You cannot denounce the federal debt and then claim that you never cared about the revenue side of things. The deficit scare tactics lately have been all about solvency. If America doesn’t bring down its spending, they said, we will turn into Greece.
To say that Republican screaming about the deficit was a political ploy, with no substance behind it, is an understatement. Republicans have never been about deficits for real. Do you remember Cheney declaring that “deficits don’t matter?” Republicans were all about regaining power – bleating what their voters wanted to hear. They have no real intention to bring down the deficit by much. It is just an excuse to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and try to put healthcare back where it was in 2008 with its steeply increasing costs and hundreds of thousands of patients being dumped. And, folks, that is just what they will try to do.
Okay... we have awakened to the truth. Let’s all get those signs out of the closets. Now, everyone hold them up in our protest rallies over Republican fiscal irresponsibility:
“Keep the government away from my Social Security!”
“Don’t mess with my Medicare!”
What? You threw them away when the Republicans won the House?
If the Tea Party does not get out and march against Republicans destroying Social Security and Medicare, and allowing the deficit to increase greatly because of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, then we will know that they were really about one thing only – hating the first black President of the United States.
If the shoe fits, wear it, even if it is tight. Waking up to the truth can be painful.
Gee…Who could have known?
But when the White House struck its deal to extend the top-bracket tax cuts, the WaPo editors were incredibly enthusiastic. In a Dec. 23 editorial, they gushed about December's good cheer: the "president and lawmakers have every reason to feel good about the closing weeks of the 111th Congress" and that the tax-cut deal specifically was an "achievement to be celebrated." No mention was made at the time at the way that same tax cut deal added to the deficits, because the glorious bipartisanship on display trumped all of those practical considerations.
The gullibility of the media on all this amounts to journalistic malpractice because they should have reminded people of Republican history. Republicans have, after all, been the party of fiscal irresponsibility since 1980 as confirmed by the Reagan administration tripling the deficit during the eight years it was in office and by the George W. Bush administration when unfunded tax cuts became the main party focus.
Then along comes a Democratic president who presides over just two years of deficits in the immediate aftermath of a severe financial crisis – which is a time when you’re actually supposed to run deficits. Republicans begin protesting vehemently against the evils of red ink – and, incredibly, the media, especially the right wing media, believes them.
If you actually paid attention to what leading Republicans were saying, their lack of seriousness was totally obvious. For example, the Ryan plan claimed to reduce the deficit; but, if you actually looked into it at all, it relied completely on magic (read the asterisks). Another example is the declarations by top Republicans that deficits are terrible but there is no need to offset the cost of the Bush tax cuts.
The idea that Republicans are allowed to pose as deficit hawks is stunning. Oh, and for those claiming that Republicans have always said that spending, not deficits, is what matters: this is very much revisionist history. You cannot denounce the federal debt and then claim that you never cared about the revenue side of things. The deficit scare tactics lately have been all about solvency. If America doesn’t bring down its spending, they said, we will turn into Greece.
To say that Republican screaming about the deficit was a political ploy, with no substance behind it, is an understatement. Republicans have never been about deficits for real. Do you remember Cheney declaring that “deficits don’t matter?” Republicans were all about regaining power – bleating what their voters wanted to hear. They have no real intention to bring down the deficit by much. It is just an excuse to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and try to put healthcare back where it was in 2008 with its steeply increasing costs and hundreds of thousands of patients being dumped. And, folks, that is just what they will try to do.
Okay... we have awakened to the truth. Let’s all get those signs out of the closets. Now, everyone hold them up in our protest rallies over Republican fiscal irresponsibility:
“Keep the government away from my Social Security!”
“Don’t mess with my Medicare!”
What? You threw them away when the Republicans won the House?
If the Tea Party does not get out and march against Republicans destroying Social Security and Medicare, and allowing the deficit to increase greatly because of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, then we will know that they were really about one thing only – hating the first black President of the United States.
If the shoe fits, wear it, even if it is tight. Waking up to the truth can be painful.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Beyond the church
Since 2003, I have been walking a Christian path without the church. At first, it was not by choice – it was due to complications from surgery coupled with chronic illness resulting in being unable to leave my home for very long at one time. But I had already been struggling with deep questions about my faith – yet staying in the church despite being given trite answers. My illness forced my hand. I could no longer attend church – or any group event. I had to search for answers on my own.
Churches are designed to help people mature in service and discipleship; but most churches are not equipped to help with the internal struggles of identity and meaning. Although the church is supposedly not the institution, not the building, and not the Sunday worship service, there are Christians who stop attending church precisely because too much emphasis is placed on the institution, the building, and on Sunday services. They would much rather spend time with other believers in smaller communities throughout the week than with large numbers of people once a week. Hence, there is a phenomenal growth of small House Churches.
Many Christians are leaving church in order to rescue their faith. They see the institutional church itself as the problem. Another part of the problem is that the members of a church cannot grow past the level of their leaders, unless they pursue growth through other sources – which is all too often discouraged by many church leaders who believe that the Bible is the only source for the Christian faith. Too many Christian leaders view education from sources outside the church as a threat.
In a study called Barriers to Belief, Reverend John Campbell writes, "many have indicated that one of the greatest barriers to belief in God is the Church itself." It is not simply a matter of working from within the church to fix the problems. The solution is not in making slight changes and adaptations to some new forms of the organization, but in a much more radical rediscovery of the very nature of the church.
New Zealand Baptist Pastor and Sociologist Dr. Alan Jamieson wrote about the spiritual quests of these "post-congregational" Christians – those who leave the church. What Jamieson has found in his studies surprised him. In researching his book, A Churchless Faith, he interviewed 108 leavers. Most were not marginal churchgoers who finally quit, but, instead, organizational linchpins. Ninety-four percent had been church leaders – deacons, home-group leaders, elders, Sunday school teachers – and 32 percent had been in ministry.
Jamieson thought he knew what happened to the faith of Christians who left the church – he thought it died. But when he went to his first interview, he met a couple who turned his ideas upside down. Two-and-a-half hours later, he left their home shaken, trying to make sense of what he had heard and felt. The couple had been key and effective leaders. They had not walked away from a relationship with God but continued to pray, worship, and study the Bible. They even prayed for Jamieson and his ministry before he left. These people were not backsliders.
Ironically, Jamieson says that the people perhaps best equipped to help this type of seekers to understand God were the very ones being lost to the church.Throughout his research, Jamieson found longtime Christian leaders with significant resumes who, while adrift from the traditional church, were definitely on a journey to know God – a God not intimidated by the hard questions that were unwelcome in their former churches.
Counting the leavers
What Jamieson found in his research among New Zealand Christians is echoed in America and elsewhere, as researchers have begun to ask hard questions about Christians who seek a churchless faith.
• While the number of Americans claiming no religious preference doubled – from 7 percent to 14 percent – between 1990 and 2000, surprisingly that did not translate into a corresponding decrease in the actual belief in God or Christ. Michael Hout and Claude Fischer published these findings, based on data from a wide range of public-opinion surveys on religion, in American Sociological Review. According to the researchers, most of the new "no preference" respondents continue to hold their conventional religious beliefs. Hout explained: "Most people who have no church still are likely to say things like: 'God is real. Heaven and hell are real. I and my kids will go there [heaven] when we're dead.'”
•Evangelical researcher George Barna noted two years ago that a large number of American adults regularly participate in faith activities – prayer, Bible reading, use of religious media – even though they have not attended a church service in many months or years. They are ignoring the institutional church, but not faith, he said. In Re-Churching the Unchurched, Barna said: "Relatively few unchurched people are atheists. Most of them call themselves Christian and have had a serious dose of church life in the past."
Barna also found that about one-third of young adults are leaving the church and not returning. This is in greater numbers than ever. Some reasons given are:
1) There is little intellectual discussion. Hard, searching questions are not allowed. Often trite answers such as “You just have to have faith” are given.
2) Many are increasingly disillusioned with the focus on attendance, buildings and cash.
3) The church is too involved in politics. It seems that many very good people in the church are not really interested in knowing the biblical Jesus, but only the republican Jesus.
4) Too many churches are into "entertainment evangelism."
5) And this is most telling: For too many people, the church is a substitute for Christ. Church is their focus, their identity, what they live for, what they work for, what they love and fight for.
• The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates there are 112,575,000 worldwide "churchless Christians." Yes, that reads over 100 million. That's 5 percent worldwide. And that number will double to 225,712,000 by 2025, Barrett says.
Some would consider it old news that mainline Christian denominations have shed members in droves. But Alan Jamieson and others warn that evangelical and charismatic churches are faring no better. While many boast massive numbers of converts, the church is like a collection bag full of holes – while new converts are being taken in through the front, the church is leaking just as many out the back. It appears that these churches are good at collecting new members, but not good at keeping their longtime members.
Searching beyond the basics
In The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich, the authors give great insights into why people leave the church – reasons many pastors have likely never considered.
Hagberg and Guelich propose that most spiritual journeys tend to move in six distinct stages. The first three are easy to see and hard to argue with: (1) Recognition of God, (2) The Life of Discipleship, and (3) The Productive Life. Certainly after most people become followers of Christ (stage 1) they begin to absorb as much content (stage 2) as possible. Then sometime later they begin to serve (stage 3). And since the authors propose that the stages are cumulative, people of faith continue to be good at these stages over the long haul. The first three stages of faith are where our churches excel and where most church leadership energy is expended.
But Hagberg and Guelich say there are still three more stages in spiritual growth – and it is the fourth I want to focus on because that is where I have spent the last decade. The fourth stage is called "The Journey Inward." The authors suggest that at some point our faith shifts focus from the externals of discipleship and service and begins to become internal. We begin to develop “a deep and very personal inward journey” that “almost always comes as an unsettling experience yet results in healing for those who continue through it.” We begin to redefine our faith and, to a great extent, our theology as we mature.
An attempt to grow beyond the first three stages within the Christian church is frustrating. This fourth stage is where my experience (and the authors') reveals the church's weakness. How does the church walk alongside those who are on the Journey Inward? What does the church do when someone hits the spiritual wall? Most churches do very little.
Obviously the church’s main focus is evangelizing and teaching the basics of discipleship. After all, most of the members are in stages 1, 2, or 3 and remain there for a lifetime. Churches do not specialize in people who have been following Christ for years and who are deeply questioning and reexamining their beliefs. These searchers often become so disillusioned with their church that they either physically leave or occupy their minds with daydreams, drawings, planning, etc, as they continue to occupy a seat in Sunday services.
When people search beyond the basic teachings, they find they must look for spiritually educational content and areas of service but away from their church. Some discover a new teacher across town who "really" teaches the Bible. Some discover service through missions, charities, or in foreign countries. While their true need may be for something deeper, they settle for something different.
Many Christians, like me, struggle to find a way to worship in honesty and find equilibrium in their spiritual life. During the “journey inward,” the questioning believer often hits a spiritual wall. For those few who are able to get beyond The Wall, stage 5 “the journey outward” and stage 6 “the life of love” comes from a faith that is your own unique walk with God. You have left organized, institutional religion’s herd mentality far behind.
Tending to the wounded
While Jamieson's A Churchless Faith functions as a travelogue of spiritual quests undertaken by those who have left the institutional church, American pastor and student worker Mary Tuomi Hammond, in The Church and the Dechurched, turns her attention to the spiritually injured – those battling emotional, spiritual, or mental scars they associate with their church experience.
Although highlighting different reasons for the exodus, and unaware of each other's work, the two Baptist ministers came to the same conclusion: The church needs to notice and nurture dechurched believers, for the spiritual benefit of all concerned.
Hammond has a consuming passion for people "who have lost a faith that they once valued or have left a body of believers with whom they were once deeply engaged." These are the souls who have lost their connection to God – included among that population are: rabid atheists, silent agnostics, moral humanists, new practitioners of distinctly non-Christian spiritualities, and bleeding believers who still cling weakly to faith. The wounded souls of the last group often come to believe that God is distant, having disappeared when other Christians attacked them. All these are among the church's strongest critics because they are now outsiders who were once insiders.
Like Jamieson, Hammond has been chastised for "attacking the faith" by recounting stories of spiritual abuse – but neither will wear that label. Hammond replies: "My love for the church compels me to challenge the church to hear and attend to the cries of its own wounded. I love the church and I wrestle with it. I love the Lord and I wrestle with my faith as well. In that visceral relationship between loving and wrestling, I find strength, hope and life that cannot be extinguished."
Providing spirited exchanges
Jamieson asks why people with a deep longing for God decide they must abandon their congregational homes to continue growing spiritually. He learned that many churches are unaware, even unconcerned, about those who have left. The overwhelming majority of leavers interviewed in his study said no one from their church ever talked with them about why they left. Jamieson's tone is sadly incredulous as he recounts one successful pastor's declaration that Jesus' parable of the lost sheep does not apply to those "who know where the paddock is and intentionally wander away" and that godly ministers should not waste time chasing them.
Rather than abandon these searchers, Jamieson says, the church should accompany them.
Within his own church, Jamieson has started a group called Spirited Exchanges. Twice a month, 30 or more people gather at Jamieson's church but definitely not for church. Seated at cafe-like tables and sipping tea in the subdued light of the basement, they talk freely. No topic is off limits – the nature of God, homosexuality, spiritual abuse, the role of women. But the focus, Jamieson says, is "on where we are going instead of what we have left."
"Spirited Exchanges is not designed to be church," Jamieson explains. "It is a place where people can talk about anything they want to talk about, without any sense of being 'out of line' or being told their thoughts are inappropriate." Jamieson says he is aware of about 50 other groups like Spirited Exchanges.
Not surprisingly, the three-year-old program has brought Jamieson criticism from all directions. "Some people insist I am encouraging people to leave the church. And others are just as indignant that I am scheming to lure black sheep back into the church." But Jamieson is unshaken in his commitment to teach churches to become leaver-sensitive.
"We need to realize that God is in the question as well as the answer, and that living with the questions is part of the journey," he points out. "For many people it would help if this journey was talked about, preached about, and discussed in the life of the church. This can reinforce the hope that God, who can seem so absent at times, reappears later with more clarity and connection than people may have experienced."
Where to go now?
Some say that they are called to be outside the church – to walk a path beyond the church, yet continue to walk with the Lord.
Being without a church will not keep someone from God's Grace. But it is important to be part of a community, even if it is online, because the Christian path is not just a private experience. The Christian path is also a community experience – one of sharing. If you are on a path beyond the church, may the Lord walk with you.
They have cradled you in custom,
They have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase
You’re a credit to their teaching--
But can’t you hear the wild? It’s calling you.
Poem: The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service
Sources:
• The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Journey-Stages-Faith-Second/dp/1879215497
• The Church and the Dechurched by Mary Tuomi Hammond
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Dechurched-Mending-Damaged-Faith/dp/0827204868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291070663&sr=1-1
• A Churchless Faith by Alan Jamieson
http://www.amazon.com/Churchless-Faith-Alan-Jamieson/dp/0281054657/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291070716&sr=1-2
• A good summary of the Haberg and Guelich book: http://restoringtheheart.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/stages-of-faith-hagberg-guelich-model-of-faith-development/
• Does God Want You to Leave Your Church? By Whitney Hopler
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/11561422/
• The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service (entire poem)
http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/robert-william-service/the-call-of-the-wild/
Churches are designed to help people mature in service and discipleship; but most churches are not equipped to help with the internal struggles of identity and meaning. Although the church is supposedly not the institution, not the building, and not the Sunday worship service, there are Christians who stop attending church precisely because too much emphasis is placed on the institution, the building, and on Sunday services. They would much rather spend time with other believers in smaller communities throughout the week than with large numbers of people once a week. Hence, there is a phenomenal growth of small House Churches.
Many Christians are leaving church in order to rescue their faith. They see the institutional church itself as the problem. Another part of the problem is that the members of a church cannot grow past the level of their leaders, unless they pursue growth through other sources – which is all too often discouraged by many church leaders who believe that the Bible is the only source for the Christian faith. Too many Christian leaders view education from sources outside the church as a threat.
In a study called Barriers to Belief, Reverend John Campbell writes, "many have indicated that one of the greatest barriers to belief in God is the Church itself." It is not simply a matter of working from within the church to fix the problems. The solution is not in making slight changes and adaptations to some new forms of the organization, but in a much more radical rediscovery of the very nature of the church.
New Zealand Baptist Pastor and Sociologist Dr. Alan Jamieson wrote about the spiritual quests of these "post-congregational" Christians – those who leave the church. What Jamieson has found in his studies surprised him. In researching his book, A Churchless Faith, he interviewed 108 leavers. Most were not marginal churchgoers who finally quit, but, instead, organizational linchpins. Ninety-four percent had been church leaders – deacons, home-group leaders, elders, Sunday school teachers – and 32 percent had been in ministry.
Jamieson thought he knew what happened to the faith of Christians who left the church – he thought it died. But when he went to his first interview, he met a couple who turned his ideas upside down. Two-and-a-half hours later, he left their home shaken, trying to make sense of what he had heard and felt. The couple had been key and effective leaders. They had not walked away from a relationship with God but continued to pray, worship, and study the Bible. They even prayed for Jamieson and his ministry before he left. These people were not backsliders.
Ironically, Jamieson says that the people perhaps best equipped to help this type of seekers to understand God were the very ones being lost to the church.Throughout his research, Jamieson found longtime Christian leaders with significant resumes who, while adrift from the traditional church, were definitely on a journey to know God – a God not intimidated by the hard questions that were unwelcome in their former churches.
Counting the leavers
What Jamieson found in his research among New Zealand Christians is echoed in America and elsewhere, as researchers have begun to ask hard questions about Christians who seek a churchless faith.
• While the number of Americans claiming no religious preference doubled – from 7 percent to 14 percent – between 1990 and 2000, surprisingly that did not translate into a corresponding decrease in the actual belief in God or Christ. Michael Hout and Claude Fischer published these findings, based on data from a wide range of public-opinion surveys on religion, in American Sociological Review. According to the researchers, most of the new "no preference" respondents continue to hold their conventional religious beliefs. Hout explained: "Most people who have no church still are likely to say things like: 'God is real. Heaven and hell are real. I and my kids will go there [heaven] when we're dead.'”
•Evangelical researcher George Barna noted two years ago that a large number of American adults regularly participate in faith activities – prayer, Bible reading, use of religious media – even though they have not attended a church service in many months or years. They are ignoring the institutional church, but not faith, he said. In Re-Churching the Unchurched, Barna said: "Relatively few unchurched people are atheists. Most of them call themselves Christian and have had a serious dose of church life in the past."
Barna also found that about one-third of young adults are leaving the church and not returning. This is in greater numbers than ever. Some reasons given are:
1) There is little intellectual discussion. Hard, searching questions are not allowed. Often trite answers such as “You just have to have faith” are given.
2) Many are increasingly disillusioned with the focus on attendance, buildings and cash.
3) The church is too involved in politics. It seems that many very good people in the church are not really interested in knowing the biblical Jesus, but only the republican Jesus.
4) Too many churches are into "entertainment evangelism."
5) And this is most telling: For too many people, the church is a substitute for Christ. Church is their focus, their identity, what they live for, what they work for, what they love and fight for.
• The World Christian Encyclopedia estimates there are 112,575,000 worldwide "churchless Christians." Yes, that reads over 100 million. That's 5 percent worldwide. And that number will double to 225,712,000 by 2025, Barrett says.
Some would consider it old news that mainline Christian denominations have shed members in droves. But Alan Jamieson and others warn that evangelical and charismatic churches are faring no better. While many boast massive numbers of converts, the church is like a collection bag full of holes – while new converts are being taken in through the front, the church is leaking just as many out the back. It appears that these churches are good at collecting new members, but not good at keeping their longtime members.
Searching beyond the basics
In The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich, the authors give great insights into why people leave the church – reasons many pastors have likely never considered.
Hagberg and Guelich propose that most spiritual journeys tend to move in six distinct stages. The first three are easy to see and hard to argue with: (1) Recognition of God, (2) The Life of Discipleship, and (3) The Productive Life. Certainly after most people become followers of Christ (stage 1) they begin to absorb as much content (stage 2) as possible. Then sometime later they begin to serve (stage 3). And since the authors propose that the stages are cumulative, people of faith continue to be good at these stages over the long haul. The first three stages of faith are where our churches excel and where most church leadership energy is expended.
But Hagberg and Guelich say there are still three more stages in spiritual growth – and it is the fourth I want to focus on because that is where I have spent the last decade. The fourth stage is called "The Journey Inward." The authors suggest that at some point our faith shifts focus from the externals of discipleship and service and begins to become internal. We begin to develop “a deep and very personal inward journey” that “almost always comes as an unsettling experience yet results in healing for those who continue through it.” We begin to redefine our faith and, to a great extent, our theology as we mature.
An attempt to grow beyond the first three stages within the Christian church is frustrating. This fourth stage is where my experience (and the authors') reveals the church's weakness. How does the church walk alongside those who are on the Journey Inward? What does the church do when someone hits the spiritual wall? Most churches do very little.
Obviously the church’s main focus is evangelizing and teaching the basics of discipleship. After all, most of the members are in stages 1, 2, or 3 and remain there for a lifetime. Churches do not specialize in people who have been following Christ for years and who are deeply questioning and reexamining their beliefs. These searchers often become so disillusioned with their church that they either physically leave or occupy their minds with daydreams, drawings, planning, etc, as they continue to occupy a seat in Sunday services.
When people search beyond the basic teachings, they find they must look for spiritually educational content and areas of service but away from their church. Some discover a new teacher across town who "really" teaches the Bible. Some discover service through missions, charities, or in foreign countries. While their true need may be for something deeper, they settle for something different.
Many Christians, like me, struggle to find a way to worship in honesty and find equilibrium in their spiritual life. During the “journey inward,” the questioning believer often hits a spiritual wall. For those few who are able to get beyond The Wall, stage 5 “the journey outward” and stage 6 “the life of love” comes from a faith that is your own unique walk with God. You have left organized, institutional religion’s herd mentality far behind.
Tending to the wounded
While Jamieson's A Churchless Faith functions as a travelogue of spiritual quests undertaken by those who have left the institutional church, American pastor and student worker Mary Tuomi Hammond, in The Church and the Dechurched, turns her attention to the spiritually injured – those battling emotional, spiritual, or mental scars they associate with their church experience.
Although highlighting different reasons for the exodus, and unaware of each other's work, the two Baptist ministers came to the same conclusion: The church needs to notice and nurture dechurched believers, for the spiritual benefit of all concerned.
Hammond has a consuming passion for people "who have lost a faith that they once valued or have left a body of believers with whom they were once deeply engaged." These are the souls who have lost their connection to God – included among that population are: rabid atheists, silent agnostics, moral humanists, new practitioners of distinctly non-Christian spiritualities, and bleeding believers who still cling weakly to faith. The wounded souls of the last group often come to believe that God is distant, having disappeared when other Christians attacked them. All these are among the church's strongest critics because they are now outsiders who were once insiders.
Like Jamieson, Hammond has been chastised for "attacking the faith" by recounting stories of spiritual abuse – but neither will wear that label. Hammond replies: "My love for the church compels me to challenge the church to hear and attend to the cries of its own wounded. I love the church and I wrestle with it. I love the Lord and I wrestle with my faith as well. In that visceral relationship between loving and wrestling, I find strength, hope and life that cannot be extinguished."
Providing spirited exchanges
Jamieson asks why people with a deep longing for God decide they must abandon their congregational homes to continue growing spiritually. He learned that many churches are unaware, even unconcerned, about those who have left. The overwhelming majority of leavers interviewed in his study said no one from their church ever talked with them about why they left. Jamieson's tone is sadly incredulous as he recounts one successful pastor's declaration that Jesus' parable of the lost sheep does not apply to those "who know where the paddock is and intentionally wander away" and that godly ministers should not waste time chasing them.
Rather than abandon these searchers, Jamieson says, the church should accompany them.
Within his own church, Jamieson has started a group called Spirited Exchanges. Twice a month, 30 or more people gather at Jamieson's church but definitely not for church. Seated at cafe-like tables and sipping tea in the subdued light of the basement, they talk freely. No topic is off limits – the nature of God, homosexuality, spiritual abuse, the role of women. But the focus, Jamieson says, is "on where we are going instead of what we have left."
"Spirited Exchanges is not designed to be church," Jamieson explains. "It is a place where people can talk about anything they want to talk about, without any sense of being 'out of line' or being told their thoughts are inappropriate." Jamieson says he is aware of about 50 other groups like Spirited Exchanges.
Not surprisingly, the three-year-old program has brought Jamieson criticism from all directions. "Some people insist I am encouraging people to leave the church. And others are just as indignant that I am scheming to lure black sheep back into the church." But Jamieson is unshaken in his commitment to teach churches to become leaver-sensitive.
"We need to realize that God is in the question as well as the answer, and that living with the questions is part of the journey," he points out. "For many people it would help if this journey was talked about, preached about, and discussed in the life of the church. This can reinforce the hope that God, who can seem so absent at times, reappears later with more clarity and connection than people may have experienced."
Where to go now?
Some say that they are called to be outside the church – to walk a path beyond the church, yet continue to walk with the Lord.
Being without a church will not keep someone from God's Grace. But it is important to be part of a community, even if it is online, because the Christian path is not just a private experience. The Christian path is also a community experience – one of sharing. If you are on a path beyond the church, may the Lord walk with you.
They have cradled you in custom,
They have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase
You’re a credit to their teaching--
But can’t you hear the wild? It’s calling you.
Poem: The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service
Sources:
• The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Journey-Stages-Faith-Second/dp/1879215497
• The Church and the Dechurched by Mary Tuomi Hammond
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Dechurched-Mending-Damaged-Faith/dp/0827204868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1291070663&sr=1-1
• A Churchless Faith by Alan Jamieson
http://www.amazon.com/Churchless-Faith-Alan-Jamieson/dp/0281054657/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1291070716&sr=1-2
• A good summary of the Haberg and Guelich book: http://restoringtheheart.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/stages-of-faith-hagberg-guelich-model-of-faith-development/
• Does God Want You to Leave Your Church? By Whitney Hopler
Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer
http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/11561422/
• The Call of the Wild by Robert William Service (entire poem)
http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/robert-william-service/the-call-of-the-wild/
Sunday, December 12, 2010
This is shameful
As Congress begins wrangling over budget cuts and other austerity measures, I hope they do not lose sight of the plight of the most vulnerable among us — the ones who have little say and few choices: the nation’s poorest children.
The gap between those children and the rest of our children is already unacceptably wide, and it cannot afford to get wider. In fact, a report entitled “The Children Left Behind,” released by UNICEF last Friday, examined inequality in well-being on a wide range of measures among children in 24 of the world’s richest countries.
Notice that America’s rankings are among the worst.
Parents play a large role in this inequality, but so do local, state, and federal policies. As the report wisely asks, “Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?”
Absolutely – yes!
This is shameful. I would hope that our politicians would move to improve this situation. But at the very least, I hope they do not make it worse by cutting education and social programs that help the poor.
Matthew 25:40 says, “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” This goes both ways. If you do good things for people, then you have done it to the Lord. But if you do things that hurt people, especially the downtrodden, you have also done that to the Lord.
Read the report: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc9_eng.pdf
The gap between those children and the rest of our children is already unacceptably wide, and it cannot afford to get wider. In fact, a report entitled “The Children Left Behind,” released by UNICEF last Friday, examined inequality in well-being on a wide range of measures among children in 24 of the world’s richest countries.
Notice that America’s rankings are among the worst.
Parents play a large role in this inequality, but so do local, state, and federal policies. As the report wisely asks, “Is there a point beyond which falling behind is not inevitable but policy susceptible, not unavoidable but unacceptable, not inequality but inequity?”
Absolutely – yes!
This is shameful. I would hope that our politicians would move to improve this situation. But at the very least, I hope they do not make it worse by cutting education and social programs that help the poor.
Matthew 25:40 says, “And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.” This goes both ways. If you do good things for people, then you have done it to the Lord. But if you do things that hurt people, especially the downtrodden, you have also done that to the Lord.
Read the report: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc9_eng.pdf
Monday, December 6, 2010
Compromising too much, too soon
President Obama is making a huge mistake in giving things up before ever sitting down at the conference table. Obama is always "reaching out" in an attempt to compromise with Lucillian Republicans (as in Lucy in the Peanuts cartoon), gets the ball taken away from him, and still continues to reach out to Republicans. Sadly, for this President it is becoming a glaring weakness. In his attempt to look bi-partisan, he concedes to the GOP practically everything important to his left-leaning base just to get something passed.
Oh no, not again!
Part of the contrast Obama sought to draw with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign was that you would never catch him triangulating against his base for political gain. It was a point of pride for Obama that he would have no so-called Sister Souljah moments, even when he vehemently disagreed with liberals. But Obama has put all of his compromises on the table from the outset. He compromised too early on health care, financial regulation, and climate change.
For two years Obama has championed extending the Bush tax cuts only for individuals who earn (net) less than $200,000 a year and couples that make less than $250,000. In his weekly radio address last week, he said: “For the past decade, they [the middle class] saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have been pushing for a permanent extension of the tax cuts for everyone regardless of income. So, lately, since Republicans won the House in the mid-terms, Obama has signaled that he is willing to compromise. Insisting that tax cuts for wealthier Americans should not become permanent because of a $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade, he left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels – as long as it falls short of costing that $700 billion. This has a lot of Democrats steaming.
Emboldened by their election victories and vowing to continue to block Obama's agenda, all Congressional Republicans signed a letter that said they would block the Democratic agenda for the lame-duck session of Congress, except for the tax cuts and a bill to fund the federal government. They want the federal government funded through next September before they have to deal with the Tea Partiers who want to shut down government over this very spending bill. They have taken a harder line on making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
Worried about their futures as their power wanes, the Democratic congressional caucuses want to see President Obama fight harder for their causes. They are concerned that he may emulate former President Bill Clinton and cut deals with Republicans too much for their liking. And I think Obama will move to the right – and possibly give away the store to the GOP.
How much of his political capital will President Obama stake to defend the principles he ran on in 2008? If Obama compromises on his once-firm stand on the tax cuts, it will amplify questions that Democrats have been asking for nearly two years – essentially, what does he really stand for when his back is to the wall?
Now that the deficit commission has offered its proposals, the essential decision facing Obama is whether he will side either with centrist reformers from both parties, who would overhaul both cherished entitlements and the tax system, or side with traditional liberals, who prefer to remove the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and raise the wage limit for FICA taxes so that the rich pay a little more.
In other words, the suddenly pressing issue of the debt will force Obama to choose, at last, between the dueling, ill-defined promises of his presidential campaign – between a “post-partisan” vision of government on one hand and a liberal renaissance on the other. The problem with this is that it puts Obama in something of a dilemma. He is not willing to publicly make a break with liberals, so independent and conservative voters tend to see him as a tool of the left. And since he generally will not do exactly what the left wants him to do, he ends up with very little gratitude from his own party.
Obama is in a box – one of his own making – and it is about to become uninhabitable. Obama is going to have to choose what side he is on. My bet is that he will lean toward the Republican agenda (like Clinton), give away the farm by putting his compromises on the table at the outset, and seal his fate as a one term president.
Oh no, not again!
Part of the contrast Obama sought to draw with Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign was that you would never catch him triangulating against his base for political gain. It was a point of pride for Obama that he would have no so-called Sister Souljah moments, even when he vehemently disagreed with liberals. But Obama has put all of his compromises on the table from the outset. He compromised too early on health care, financial regulation, and climate change.
For two years Obama has championed extending the Bush tax cuts only for individuals who earn (net) less than $200,000 a year and couples that make less than $250,000. In his weekly radio address last week, he said: “For the past decade, they [the middle class] saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. They’re the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. They’re the ones having trouble making ends meet. They are the ones who need relief right now.”
Republicans, meanwhile, have been pushing for a permanent extension of the tax cuts for everyone regardless of income. So, lately, since Republicans won the House in the mid-terms, Obama has signaled that he is willing to compromise. Insisting that tax cuts for wealthier Americans should not become permanent because of a $700 billion impact on the deficit over the next decade, he left the door open to a temporary extension for higher income levels – as long as it falls short of costing that $700 billion. This has a lot of Democrats steaming.
Emboldened by their election victories and vowing to continue to block Obama's agenda, all Congressional Republicans signed a letter that said they would block the Democratic agenda for the lame-duck session of Congress, except for the tax cuts and a bill to fund the federal government. They want the federal government funded through next September before they have to deal with the Tea Partiers who want to shut down government over this very spending bill. They have taken a harder line on making permanent the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans.
Worried about their futures as their power wanes, the Democratic congressional caucuses want to see President Obama fight harder for their causes. They are concerned that he may emulate former President Bill Clinton and cut deals with Republicans too much for their liking. And I think Obama will move to the right – and possibly give away the store to the GOP.
How much of his political capital will President Obama stake to defend the principles he ran on in 2008? If Obama compromises on his once-firm stand on the tax cuts, it will amplify questions that Democrats have been asking for nearly two years – essentially, what does he really stand for when his back is to the wall?
Now that the deficit commission has offered its proposals, the essential decision facing Obama is whether he will side either with centrist reformers from both parties, who would overhaul both cherished entitlements and the tax system, or side with traditional liberals, who prefer to remove the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and raise the wage limit for FICA taxes so that the rich pay a little more.
In other words, the suddenly pressing issue of the debt will force Obama to choose, at last, between the dueling, ill-defined promises of his presidential campaign – between a “post-partisan” vision of government on one hand and a liberal renaissance on the other. The problem with this is that it puts Obama in something of a dilemma. He is not willing to publicly make a break with liberals, so independent and conservative voters tend to see him as a tool of the left. And since he generally will not do exactly what the left wants him to do, he ends up with very little gratitude from his own party.
Obama is in a box – one of his own making – and it is about to become uninhabitable. Obama is going to have to choose what side he is on. My bet is that he will lean toward the Republican agenda (like Clinton), give away the farm by putting his compromises on the table at the outset, and seal his fate as a one term president.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)