Category: Politics

Enough slander and libel to make you go ‘mhmm’. Tell me again why these guys work for us?

Romney’s 47%

There’s already a horde of commentary that tries to compare Mitt Romney’s now infamous words to Barack Obama’s equally dumb remark: how in bad economic times, “people get bitter, they cling to their guns and religion.”

Okay, let’s cut through the superbole of gotcha and get one thing straight. These words were said to ardent donors – to inform the wallet warriors about policy ideas, but more important, to learn more about the candidate’s intimate notions, underlying motives, and true agendas. In both cases, Romney and Obama are merely chalking out the outlines that define followers versus detractors.

But I think the problem for Romney is that he played to the fences a bit overmuch. Did he really have to cast nearly HALF of the population as wonton freeloaders? I’m a liberal voting for Obama, and if I wasn’t supposed to be paying taxes, I’d better give my accountant a call. The fact is, Romney’s “47%” includes retirees. Like Ol’ Kemp – 87 years old with a face like crabgrass. He was a former USAF operative during Vietnam who later busted his ass to earn an engineering degree and worked for about 30 years for Hughes Aircraft as a ground systems analyst and trainer. He’s an old Texan Democrat (if you know what I mean). I’m sure that ‘ol’ bag o’bones’ will give me an earful about Romney’s blunder. I hope Mittens isn’t planning to hold a rally around Amarillo, TX any time soon. Thurman might go “second amendment” on him, if you know what I mean. But I digress.

Personally, I want to cut Romney some slack. He has the right to define his followers and cheer his donors. You must admit that the post-gaffe period is a lot less messy than it could have been. He gains buko respect points for sticking to his guns today. And here’s the bonus for the rest of us moochers and lazy liberals, the chalk lines were never more clearer; the mission never more urgent.

Barack Obama 2012

God’s Platform

The latest hype from the media – Democrats and God.

Back in Charlotte, NC, there was a “public outcry” over removing God and Jerusalem (as the capital of Israel) from the Democratic platform. Through the thicket of fear, party leaders scrambled to reassert the omitted language.

And who was it that lead the charge? None other than the Convention Chairman himself, Antonio Villaraigosa, also the mayor of Los Angeles – calling three times for a voice vote on the resolution. The end was an unconvincing gavel as the YAYs and NAYS competed for airspace.

But to what end?

The first thing that puzzles me is why did the Dem leadership leave this opening? Why give the GOP any reason to strengthen their claim that the Democrats (aka “Liberals”) are a gaggle of godless pagans? What a stupid move!

Source: Yahoo
Source: Yahoo

More to the point however, why must I give this idiotic discussion even a moment’s notice? Well… for one… I’m bored. But more to the point, because this event lends credence to my general theory that when Men want to really screw things up, all they have to do is bring up God.

If God had a platform, I’m pretty sure He’d merely reiterate His wish that all things that belong to Caesar shall remain Caesar’s and the rest shall belong to God.

 

Weary and Wary

Say “aye” if you’re weary and wary of rump-headed politicians and their insipid slogans. They say it’s for the sake of democracy, but is it really? I reached my saturation point during the runup to the primaries – made my choice once it became clear that RMONEY was going to win the GOP nomination. Lacking any dazzling alternative, RMONEY seems worse than the usual “lesser of evils.” The SOB is evil because of the interests he represents. But I digress…

The campaigning only exemplifies the terrible lack of choice our so-called democracy gives us. But… can I successfully argue non-participation? Nope. Gotta vote. Gotta stand up and be counted. I’m weary of the campaign, wary of the promises, but there’s no way in hell that I’m going to allow the lowest common denominator be our only voice. No way in hell.

 

Apeshit Teabagging Nitwits

Cuss words. “The quality or state of being profane.” See also desecration or disrespect toward an object of religious veneration. One utterance can be a single word, a general expression or gesture. The Chinese tend to be more poetic than Americans or their European cousins, dashing insulting haiku in rude and vulgar strains. Blasphemy is handy for damning one person or his whole frakking family. And here’s a conundrum – why is it that profanity from a man is more acceptable than from a woman? Shit man… equality!

In polite cultures, profanity can involve taboo words. Over the course of time, some words that were originally considered profane have become much less offensive. Meanwhile, some formerly common words have worked their way into profanity. Still others, like racial or ethnic epithets, is considered hate speech generally not tolerated by society, unless you have a screw loose for purity.

Anyhow, there is poetry found profanity – even American. I think of it as folk poetry laced into American heritage like peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.  Common, but also very much a part of the cultural fabric. And its absence is pretentious and unnatural.

There is an etymological a pattern to cussing. Like my dad (and his father), anything and anybody can be a “sonovabitch.”  The poetry of cussing requires that the user know how to intensify his feeling with certain adjectives. If “sonuvabitch” is treated as a root, then you can plainly see the transformation:

A friend in an amusing situation may be called “that damn sonovabitch” or just “that sonovabitch” followed by a loud guffaw.  An acquaintance that you know nothing about except for an amusing situation may be labeled “that goddamn sonovabitch” or “that damn sonovabitch” depending upon the given situation.

A person with whom the community holds a general disregard may be “that stupid goddamn dumass sonovabitch” or simply “dumbass sonovabitch.” A person who has earned some measure of infamy may be labeled “that fucking goddamn stupid sonovabitch” or “fucking stupid sonovabitch” or “stupid fucking sonovabitch” depending on the user’s mood and object of notoriety.

The next level of language engenders levels of personal irritation especially when theses words are added to the mix: “socialist,” “democrat,” and (my favorite of late), “liberal.” which may or may not be combined with variations of “Shit for brains socialist,” “Shithead democrat,” or “dumbass liberal” depending upon the intended purpose and prose, and our all time favorite: the Libtard.

Of course, this socialist liberal may retort with his own poetry in uttering something along the lines of “most of these apeshit teabagging nitwits wouldn’t know a serious fucking issue if it came up and bit them in their goddamned stupid asses.”

By the way, the whole point of this exercise is to display my general disdain for all things TP. I have yet to meet one that grasps the mere comprehension of (a) true socialism nor (b) the meaning of liberalism.  And THEY think Obama is their problem?

Dumshits.

So?

Dick Sez I was thinking of the various forms of superbole. Usually, it’s the market-speak variety designed to provoke a buying frenzy. Then there are the multi-syllabic brain-pokers; the erudite rants that nobody really understands anyhow (but we nod anyhow to feign comprehension). Of course, we shant forget colorful scatological metaphors that we learn on the playground before we work up to more sophisticated assaults. Then there are the uniquely succinct ones that just sneek up and poke you in the eye, like whatDick Cheney did the other night.

ABC‘s Martha Raddatz had him on-camera for a recent interview. She peppered him with the usual round of political questions du Jour. Then, late in the interview she cited polling that shows that two-thirds of Americans believe that the Iraq War is not worth the cost.

“They’re looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives,” she emphasized.

To whit, Dick said, “So?”

Obviously astonished by the cavalier toss off, Raddatz countered, “So you don’t care what the American people think?”

For a moment, Dick stared at her – to emphasize that, yes, indeed, he didn’t. I believe he almost chuckled before he finally smugly replied, “No.”

Of course, there is context. He went on to make the case that leaders should not be “blown off course” by ever-moving and ever-changing public opinion. And I would agree with that point and might have let this pass were it not for his obvious display of utter disregard for the question, especially in his position as a servant of the people.

Many in the foreign press also commented and several made great emphasis of Dick’s personality: a man of great arrogance. By my lights, Mr Cheney gets the award for the least number of syllables uttered in superbole.

Congrats.

Is Barack Obama a RACIST??

Obama with VetsHe is if you believe some bloggers and a handful of anonymous email.

Here are the facts. Obama attends Trinity United Church of Christ which adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. They identify “12 precepts and covenantal statements” that reflect on “Black Ethics” which “must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered.”

The concepts of “Black Ethics”:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness”
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

Now to return to the claim that Obama’s church (and by association Obama himself) are racists. Obviously not. Clearly the sources of this claim are ultracon groups and race-driven derivatives of the soon to be late Bush era who are a bit upset that the last 8 years has produced such a backlash that their most dear enemy, Hillary, and their worst nightmare, a black presidential candidate, are poised to take over the Executive branch. These points alone draw serious doubt on any validity, but on the point of fact, it is fallacious.

First off, black communities and churches were formed because of Jim Crow and subsequent social conditioning. The conditioning came in the form of total segregation and subjugation that lasted more than 100 years. White communities viciously conspired against blacks and forced them to live separate lives. It is no surprise to sociologists that the social barrier lingers. It took what I consider the Second Civil War of 1963 to FORCE white communities to cease the subduction of the black community. But we were too late; the damage was done.

Deep problems continue to plague many black Americans and this church is simply recognizing them as community borne and a communal burden. By stating “Black Ethics” they are taking making an honest attempt to repair the social damage caused by a lack of identity and security. Everything in this mission statement is an intelligent distillation of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs – creating togetherness, collective membership, and support through Christian fellowship. And they have done this hand-in-hand with the spirit of God of mercy and love. Clearly, statements like ‘black community,’ ‘black family,’ and ‘black leadership’ are constructs for self-improvement and self-motivation, not ambitions toward racial supremacy.

Which leads me to my second point. There have never been nor is there likely ever going to be roving black church death squads killing whitey. Hit the buzzer, ain’t going to happen. Nor will the greater Black Community ever condone any action that aims to marginalize any other ethic community. Personally, I think the long lesson of communal suffering has made black leaders stronger that way; they are quicker in sniffing out the stench of racial injustice in all its insidious forms.
The wording of this mission statement may be jarring to some, but I think non-whites feel threatened being around blacks because of background social guilt over the centuries of injustice against Blacks. But it is entirely likely that a white person could walk into that church and worship Jesus right alongside the rest of the parishioners – and receive the Lord’s blessing just the same. But what would happen if a black person walked into a church somewhere in the Deep South?

In fact, is it not true that portions of the White Community are still active in promoting “White Ethics” ala KKK? Are there not churches throughout the country continue to marginalize and discriminate against non-whites? Not only do they spread hate for black people, but they also heap up Jews and any body else who doesn’t measure up to their brand of whiteness. But what is really scary is that you don’t even need the KKK to seed racial terrorism: America did it to the American Indians from the colonial times and right through the 1800’s. Then they did it to Chinese immigrants who slaved to build the railroads and man the factories and mines during the 1800’s. The Japanese took a good strong turn during and after WWII. And now they’re doing it to the Latinos – this time under the guise of national security.

There is no practicable argument that can successfully equate a black Christian church making an honest attempt to address social problems in their community with KKK White churches that created the terrorism of racial “ethics.” I can only conclude that this position is seeded by an appalling ignorance and is mere slander.

UPDATE: “Pastor Gate” doesn’t change a whit. But this time I suspect other politico machination at work (e.g., White Dems who may fear Obama’s strength with independent voters). Sadly, the populace is responding in predictable ways.

To My Surprise

Ohmy!I’m a bit surprised by the results from the latest primaries… surprised that we’re diving into the motherlode without clear front-runners. But this is a good thing. Like a close World Series or a hot match up in the NFL, the race is heating up the popular vote, making people pay attention (we Americans love a close race). Here’s my opinion slate as of today: I’m giving Obama a second look – impressed that he has galvanized younger voters, but there are simply not enough of them to matter I think (the ‘Boomers’ and elders outnumber them 3:1 in voting). But I really dig the way he’s rattled up those folks in the ivory tower – I savor good strong debate between him and just about anybody from the red column. I’m still askance with Hillary, never did like her laugh, but I am more than interested in the idea of her as America’s first female president (note: nearly every developed nation on the planet has had a woman in their executive office; so what’s up with that?).

Pretty much over Huckabee – he’s just way too Baptist for me. I’m not in the least entertained by that proclivity of his leaking out little foibles over social issues (e.g., religion vs constitution). I’m still rooting for McCain, but I always have had a soft touch for perennial underdogs. I’m very happy to see Edwards’ falling star – the man was just pissing me off with his populist gladwrapping and glittering generalities. I’m even more irritated with Romney, perfect hair and all – but that cultish religion of his his will never go over with me (yep, I said it – Mormonism is a cult). Glad to see people have pretty much forgotten about Rudy – what a ‘tard. And I have all but given up hope for Michael Bloomberg and a third party. The timing isn’t right – again. Way too many populists appealing to the indies. Maybe next time, Mike. But I think that Hillary is going to clench it with the Dems. Too early to tell if she’ll be in a position to pick Obama as her running mate (certainly will not be Edwards). Clinton-Obama. What a ticket that would be!

Is Obama up to the job?

Obama Obama has certainly scared the living daylights out of the established powers. To be honest, I like the idea of a candidate who worries the very people who have made the term ‘healthcare’ an oxymoron in the U.S. I enjoy the prospects of a candidate who furrows the brows of the ultra-wealthy and those who have sought to make game out of socio-economic misery. And I rather relish the idea that the masses might overcome the wishes of American dynastic politics – and Karl Rove in particular.

But I have been a second-guesser since birth and while the urge to cheer rises to my lips I wonder about Obama’s ability to be more than a visionary and a charismatic presenter? Make no mistake, the coming years will be very difficult for us. A deep recession not withstanding, we also have the prospects of further devaluation of our currency, harsher economic situations for the poor, and spiraling cost for energy and other commodities. We cannot afford to make any more rash decisions and unschooled policies. And on the military side, the situation may be worse than you know.

For those of you looking for a quick exit from Iraq. Forget it – unless you really want trouble. The fact is Bush broke Iraq – now we have to fix it or suffer some very dire consequences down the road. I think even a dove like Obama knows this – or will come to realize the fullness of the situation and end up trampling his campaign promise to leave (remember George Bush’s “read my lips”).

We can’t leave Afghanistan either – if we did the whole place would quickly fall back into the hands of the Taliban. And there’s the Sino-Triangle. This is the only place in the planet where three major nuclear powers share the same border; India, China, Pakistan; and guess what? There are long-standing border disputes with all three. This place has always held special attention with global strategists. These days, even far-out scenarios (e.g., Pakistan starts a global nuclear war) now bears grim scrutiny in our highest intelligence offices. And need I mention a rising Russia, an emboldened China, the rest of the Mid-East, and an awakening Third World that’s not really pleased with their colonial legacy. These issues require experienced leadership, elder statesmanship, and more than charisma to navigate. So think before you cheer and wave the red shirt of victory. I like Obama too, but is he the right man for this time?

The Great Fibber

Bill and HillI’m not a die-hard dem and I never considered myself a supporter of Hillary Clinton, but it really makes my blood boil every time I hear some nimrod or bush-head call Bill Clinton a liar – and as though lying is a unique family trait.

Get YOUR facts straight kiddies. Bush 41 lied through his teeth when he denied involvement in Iran-Contra. He lied about his involvement in the grandmother of CIA coverups when they silenced Noriega. But Bush 43 has surpassed every president in recent memory as the Great Fibber. And there’s really no need to get into a quibble over why that is.

No matter how cynical you want to be, when Clinton lied, nobody died. The Clinton stain is on some dumb girl’s dress and tarnished the office of the U.S. President. Dubya’s stain is on the Flag and in the sands of Iraq – and we may never wash that out and there are quite a few people who will never forgive us. Clearly, Bush and the the ultra-cons (with Cheney, et al as their beloved leaders) betrayed this country with their lies and deceit. So, the more THEY chant “Clinton Lied” the more I am likely to say “FU” and pull that lever in Hillary Clinton’s favor.

The nightmare is now kids. Time to wake up.

God Bless America.

Failure of Ministry: You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it (Part II)

In my previous post, I brought up a quote from the late Dr Adrian Pierce Rogers – known primarily by this snip: “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” In the previous post, demonstrated how Dr Rogers’ well known quote failed on two points. The first failure was how he chooses to define “socialism.” The United States, along with ALL successful industrialized nations, has a long history of supporting a healthy mix of capitalism and socialism. In fact, isn’t is true that the two economic systems appear to support one another? Of course it is.

Second point of failure: Ministry

It is odd that Dr Rogers would try to redefine how public policy ought to serve the lower classes – the “poor” as he called it. He errs on so many levels – chief among them, his attempt to draw a line between capitalism and socialism; a line that ceased to exist (at least in this country) for nearly a century. But economics aside, his greatest failure is his contradiction against the Christian faith.

For those who are not familiar with his ministry, Dr. Rogers served three terms as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, was a Southern Baptist pastor, and an author of several works well-known among Christian conservatives.  Rogers graduated from Stetson University and New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. He eventually became the senior pastor of Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, a church with a membership of 29,000 by the time he retired in March 2005.

One would believe that a man of such esteemed pastoral credentials would follow scriptural examples of charitable giving. Instead, this man chose to tell a nation that “you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” We know by other writings that his intent was purely political – to defame “liberals” who support welfare policies designed to help poor. But in the process, he makes a terrible, egregious error of faith.

Having read many of his sermons, I know that he had a penchant for quoting the Old Testament. I wonder if he ever got to Deuteronomy 14:28-29:

At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year’s produce and store it in your towns, so that the Levites (who have no allotment or inheritance of their own) and the aliens, the fatherless and the widows who live in your towns may come and eat and be satisfied, and so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.”

And Deuteronomy 15:7

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.

There are dozens of passages like that throughout the OT, but I prefer the New Testament where God leaves us with his most lasting lessons. For instance, Matthew 25:34-40, where Jesus Christ said:

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ “The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

Clearly, when Jesus instructs us to give to the poor, he asks that we do so willingly. Let’s give Dr. Rogers the benefit of the doubt and say that his point was that charity should not be legislated (“Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” – 1 Cor 13:3). And yet, should we all be so cheerful in our giving that there would be any poor left to help? The sad truth is, the free market is not free because greedy humans behave badly and taxes are required by law because selfish humans would never give government a dime.

I will go so far as to say that this unfortunate quote by Dr Rogers attempts to change Christian teaching into something more convenient; something more marketable to Christian conservatives. Moreover, by the example of the feeding of the 5,000, isn’t Jesus Christ demonstrating to us that indeed you CAN multiply wealth by dividing it?

I’ll leave you with my favorite quote today:

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
– 1 Timothy 6:17-18