Blaming Workers
If you're going to be chairman of the Party of No, inevitably you're going to contradict himself.
Rush Limbaugh tried hard on Tuesday to pretend that he wants Americans to be employed, remarking
The truth is you can't have a recovery if there aren't any jobs being created. You can say you have a recovery, but try telling that to people who aren't working, who want to work. You try telling them that the economy is coming back. And then at 10%unemployment, America still doesn't have enough workers.
But his apparent* concern was short-lived, as you can see if you wade throught this nonsense:
There was a story in the Wall Street Journal, I think it was in yesterday's stack, I didn't have a chance to get to it, but I remember enough of it. The Wall Street Journal was very happy that the Obama administration's finally figuring out here that the job situation is serious. And the Obama administration has floated something that they were talking about during the campaign and then shortly after President Obama was inaugurated, and it's this. A $3,000 tax credit or cut for every employee hired. Now, it's good that the administration is starting to float around the idea of tax cuts, and, you know, I don't want to sit here and besmirch tax cuts, but this is not why people hire people. They hire people 'cause they have work that needs to be done.
To say that somebody's going to go out and spend whatever it's going to cost to hire somebody, plus the benefit package, health care, and all that, for $3,000 tax break? When sales are down? It just isn't going to happen. If you're gonna cut taxes, cut their income tax! Don't gove tax credit stuff. Cut their income, corporate tax, small business tax, whatever it is, reduce the cost of doing business that is slapped on them by the government. Now, the Obama administration is not going to do this because they don't want that kind of independence and freedom and liberty. What they want, at the end of the day, is if enough businesses take this deal, to be able to say, Obama created jobs, Obama created jobs, came up with this big deal, give every business three grand essentially for every new hire.
Short Rush: Obama wants to give businessess a tax cut for hiring people, but that won't be effective because businesses hire individuals only when "they have work that needs to be done." Better to cut the corporate tax or small business tax, which Obama won't do because he wants to take credit for creating jobs.
Ignore for a moment that Limbaugh says the President's plan won't create jobs and that he's pushing it so that he can get credit for creating jobs. (Honestly- that's what he said.) More significant is the avoidance of fact:
The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that retail sales in August bounded higher by a seasonally adjusted 2.7 percent over the previous month, surpassing economists’ expectations of 1.9 percent. It was the largest monthly increase since January 2006....
Excluding sales of vehicles and auto parts, retail sales rose 1.1 percent in August.
A reasonable observation: the private sector is benefiting as the demand for its goods and services is increasing, however modestly. But employment has not responded, whether because of the typical lag between an increase in consumer demand and employment or, more ominously, businesses have decided that their profits will increase if more workers are not hired.
In either case, the answer to joblessness is not giving employers the "independence and freedom and liberty" they already enjoy as American citizens. The answer, obvious to the vast majority of the American people, is to match potential employee with employer. Obama's concept of a tax break for every new job created is, at least on its face, sensible.
*But wait! Rush really wasn't trying hard to feign interest in job creation. After citing the unemployment rate of 10% (actually, 9.8%- accuracy is immaterial in the world of right-wing radio), he claimed
What is amazing here, when I dig deep is, even with the economy in the straits it's in, there are still businesses that need work to be done. They are still in business, and they're trying to stay in business, and they're even trying to grow in this cesspool of an environment. And even with all the millions of people looking for work, businesses say they can't find enough highly qualified. Now, that, folks, is a slap upside the head.
The problem, folks, isn't that Americans can't find jobs. It's that, well, they're not capable. With nearly 10% unemployment, gosh darn it, those executives just can't find Americans who can do the job. Somehow, the economic climate under President Obama is sufficiently improved that businesses have "work to be done" (with no thanks to Obama- it's a "cesspool of an environment, doncha know) but our fellow citizens are inadequate.
Rush is carrying water for the business owners who "say they can't find enough highly qualifed." We've heard this slander of the American worker before (video below). It's the nonsense that helps lay the groundwork for the job-killing practices of outsourcing, offshoring, privatization, and a guest worker program (a slightly different concept, but reprehensible in its own way).
The question that needs to be asked: why do conservatives always blame Americans first?
next up: Rush confused about the NFL.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
Home Town Hero
But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
Common wisdom had it that President Ronald Reagan, delivering a speech in Orlando, Florida to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983, was describing the Soviet Union. We since have learned that he was referring to the New York Yankees, who have swept the Minnesota Twins in the American League divisional playoff series, with a little help from umpire Phil Cuzzi, who
knows what you were thinking. He was standing right there, barely 10 feet away, with an unobstructed view. He saw the ball curve down the left-field line and bounce. He is an umpire with decades of experience, working at the highest level in his sport.
How the heck did he miss that call?!
“Unless you umpire, you can’t possibly understand,” Cuzzi told The Star-Ledger in a phone interview Saturday night. “It happens. It happens at the worst possible time. And it happened to me....
He is not making excuses for what happened in the 11th inning of the Yankees’ 4-3 victory in Game 2. He missed the call. He had no idea until after the game, when he arrived back at the umpire’s room and a supervisor was waiting for the crew. He watched the replay, just like everyone else, and saw Twins catcher Joe Mauer’s line drive had bounced eight inches fair.
Cuzzi had called it foul, negating a leadoff double, and he spent much of the next 24hours trying to figure out what happened. Part of it, he thinks, was playing an unnatural position — baseball only uses umpires along the outfield foul lines in the postseason and for the All-Star Game.
The temptation, of course, is to assume that Major League Baseball is eager to have the Yankees, who had the best record in baseball this season and (with the N.Y. Mets) play in what is by far the largest media market in the U.S.A., represent the American League in the World Series. And no doubt that is true.
It's much more fun, however, to speculate further about this remarkably bad call in a crucial situation. Where does the 54-year-old Cuzzi, who says no one "on that field.... had a worse night's sleep than I did," hail from?
It might be New England, home to the Yankees' rival, the Boston Red Sox. Or perhaps the ever-growing Southeast, in Florida or perhaps the deep South. Is it the Midwest, maybe the Rust Belt or further down in the rural mid-section of the country? Perhaps it is out west, on the coast, whether California- the largest state of them all- or the Mountain West.
Cuzzi could have been from any of, say 47 states where the Yankees, who play in the borough of the Bronx, are just another baseball team, albeit a great baseball team.
But no. Phil Cuzzi, who played a pivotal role in keeping the New York Yankees from playoff elimination, hails from New Jersey. Northern New Jersey. Specifically, he is a Belleville (approximately 24 miles from the Bronx) native who lives in Nutley, approximately 13 miles from the Bronx.
Don't blame Phil Cuzzi for, intentionally or not, doing a "solid" for the home team. If he can hold down an enviable job, make an egregious error at a critical time and not even face discipline, he should not be pitied, patronized, or ridiculed. Merely envied.
But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.
Common wisdom had it that President Ronald Reagan, delivering a speech in Orlando, Florida to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983, was describing the Soviet Union. We since have learned that he was referring to the New York Yankees, who have swept the Minnesota Twins in the American League divisional playoff series, with a little help from umpire Phil Cuzzi, who
knows what you were thinking. He was standing right there, barely 10 feet away, with an unobstructed view. He saw the ball curve down the left-field line and bounce. He is an umpire with decades of experience, working at the highest level in his sport.
How the heck did he miss that call?!
“Unless you umpire, you can’t possibly understand,” Cuzzi told The Star-Ledger in a phone interview Saturday night. “It happens. It happens at the worst possible time. And it happened to me....
He is not making excuses for what happened in the 11th inning of the Yankees’ 4-3 victory in Game 2. He missed the call. He had no idea until after the game, when he arrived back at the umpire’s room and a supervisor was waiting for the crew. He watched the replay, just like everyone else, and saw Twins catcher Joe Mauer’s line drive had bounced eight inches fair.
Cuzzi had called it foul, negating a leadoff double, and he spent much of the next 24hours trying to figure out what happened. Part of it, he thinks, was playing an unnatural position — baseball only uses umpires along the outfield foul lines in the postseason and for the All-Star Game.
The temptation, of course, is to assume that Major League Baseball is eager to have the Yankees, who had the best record in baseball this season and (with the N.Y. Mets) play in what is by far the largest media market in the U.S.A., represent the American League in the World Series. And no doubt that is true.
It's much more fun, however, to speculate further about this remarkably bad call in a crucial situation. Where does the 54-year-old Cuzzi, who says no one "on that field.... had a worse night's sleep than I did," hail from?
It might be New England, home to the Yankees' rival, the Boston Red Sox. Or perhaps the ever-growing Southeast, in Florida or perhaps the deep South. Is it the Midwest, maybe the Rust Belt or further down in the rural mid-section of the country? Perhaps it is out west, on the coast, whether California- the largest state of them all- or the Mountain West.
Cuzzi could have been from any of, say 47 states where the Yankees, who play in the borough of the Bronx, are just another baseball team, albeit a great baseball team.
But no. Phil Cuzzi, who played a pivotal role in keeping the New York Yankees from playoff elimination, hails from New Jersey. Northern New Jersey. Specifically, he is a Belleville (approximately 24 miles from the Bronx) native who lives in Nutley, approximately 13 miles from the Bronx.
Don't blame Phil Cuzzi for, intentionally or not, doing a "solid" for the home team. If he can hold down an enviable job, make an egregious error at a critical time and not even face discipline, he should not be pitied, patronized, or ridiculed. Merely envied.
The Republican Media- No. 23
David Broder was once a good political columnist, and the Beltway insiders blogger Digby refers to as "the Villagers" still respect him, for some reason. As a columnist, he's entitled to his biases. But what's The New York Times' excuse?
Broder wrote yesterday about the gubernatorial race in New Jersey between incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine and Repub challenger Christopher J. Christie. Not about the issues of taxes, education, or health care, but instead
As the Times pointed out, a television ad for Corzine, "about as subtle as a playground taunt," shows Christie "stepping out of an SUV in extreme slow motion, his extra girth moving, just as slowly, in several different directions at once. In case viewers missed the point, a narrator snidely intones" that Christie, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, "threw his weight around" to avoid several traffic tickets.
As if that were not enough, Corzine, who is 62 and conspicuously fit, has been running weekend five- and 10-kilometer races in cities around the state to demonstrate that he has kept himself in much better shape than Christie despite the 15-year difference in their ages.
I have no rooting interest in the New Jersey race, but the ad hoc Committee of Journalistic Ethics Enforcers has authorized me to condemn this advertising tactic. I very much fear that if Corzine pulls out a victory next month after trailing Christie for months in the polls, the precedent will be set for a really distasteful tactic -- the "fat boy" ploy.
If you believe, as I do, that the beautiful people already have enough of an advantage in this age of television politics and cable trivia, then the last thing we need is a wave of ads highlighting the fact that others are really ugly.
There are several things wrong with these claims:
- The ad (video below) does not suggest, infer, or imply that Chris Christie is "really ugly." "Fat," if that is what is insinuated here, is not "ugly." The latter refers to something that generally is considered to be overwhelmingly a matter of heredity, and largely beyond one's ability to correct. "Fat" is, well, something else.
- It's not unusual for a candidate to get himself photographed running or engaging in some active exercise- think Reagan riding a horse, GW Bush cutting brush, Obama playing basketball (golf, once the Democratic primaries ended).
- Broder has "no rooting interest in the New Jersey race?" That's arguable, given the parallel he draws between Corzine's ad and Representative Joe Wilson's shout of "you lie" to the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress- and between Chris Christie and Abe Lincoln.
For its part, The Times, in what remarkably was not labeled an "editorial" or "analysis," said:
But the unflattering depictions of Mr. Christie, a Republican who has long struggled with his size, have been the talk of the political world in New Jersey, with Democrats snickering and Christie supporters privately complaining. The governor’s latest ad, which featured the “threw his weight around” line and was expected to be seen by some viewers as many as 10 times, brought sharp reaction, even from those who like Mr. Corzine.
“There’s no subtlety there,” said Bill Baroni, a Republican state senator from Hamilton who lost 130 pounds starting 15 years ago. “That’s not a randomly chosen phrase. It’s purposeful. And it’s offensive.”
Of course, we're not supposed to note that the quote "from those who like Mr. Corzine" came instead from a GOP state legislator, possessing a keen interest in the election of his fellow Republican to the Statehouse. But neither the "old grey lady" nor Broder (no crack here about "grey" in light of David's age) recalled
In 2005, Christie was pulled over for speeding in Lambertville, New Jersey, and was cited for speeding and for driving in an unregistered, uninsured vehicle. The car belonged to Christie's wife, but the registration had expired about two months before.
Lambertville police director Bruce Coccuzza told the radio station that Christie's position as a U.S. attorney was discussed: "He identified himself." Christie's campaign says the candidate does not recall how it came up.
In the car with Christie, according to his campaign and the local police director, were his wife, children, and Michele Brown -- the friend and then-subordinate of Christie's in the U.S. Attorney's office, who has recently resigned because of an undisclosed $46,000 loan that Christie extended to her in 2007. The group was on its way to a football game that night at Christie's alma mater, the University of Delaware.
Normally, it is a strict policy in New Jersey to tow an unregistered car -- and in fact, a tow truck did arrive at the scene, according to the campaign. However, Christie was ultimately allowed to drive home. Coccuzza told the radio station: "From what I recollect I think she (the officer) even said at the time, 'If wasn't for the fact that you had a car full of children this car would be towed.'"
The tickets were marked "NO DEAL," which is traditionally used by police when they feel a driver behaved badly, and that the judge should not go easy in the case. Christie eventually paid a $250 fine, and the registration ticket was dismissed after he produced proper documentation -- though again, Christie's campaign has conceded that the car's registration was expired at the time.
Phone calls to the Coccuzza for further clarification were not returned, and we were later told he was not taking any more calls for the day.
A lot of people are bad drivers. But Christie, who apparently "identified himself" as a U.S. attorney to police who found himself somewhat uncooperative, is used to "throwing his weight around." As in this incident, posted in a blog written by New Jersey Network News reporter Zachary Fink:
On July 26, 2002 Christie was driving a leased BMW in the city of Elizabeth.
He was on his way to a swearing in ceremony for the Union County Prosecutor. But Christie apparently got a little lost. When he got to the intersection of Murray street and Clinton, he edged out and made a partial right turn the wrong way on a one way street.
Enter Andre Mendonca. The motorcyclist was riding down Clinton street (the right way ) and when he saw Christie in the intersection, the bike fell on its side and slid into Christie’s car, according to the accident report filed by the officer on the scene.
Mendonca was injured and taken by ambulance to the hospital. Not nearby Trinitas, but UMDNJ in Newark which has a trauma center. Reached by telephone this morning, Mendonca said he had no idea his collision was with the man who is now the Republican candidate for Governor. When I started to ask him questions about the accident, he said he “shouldn’t be talking about it.” Mendonca did say that Christie seemed very concerned for his well being and blamed bad signage at the intersection for what happened. Then he hung up on me.
Christie identified himself as the US Attorney to the officer who did not issue Christie a ticket. One Elizabeth official said that the officer then drove Christie to the swearing in ceremony.
News of this accident comes on the heels of an earlier story about Christie being pulled over for speeding in Lambertville ( see earlier posts).
We asked Christie about the accident in Atlantic City Friday and he was very curt with his answers. NJN South Jersey Bureau Chief Kent St. John asked if there was a lawsuit. Christie said “no” then “nope.”
But actually there was. According to the Superior Court Record Center in Trenton, Mendonca filed suit in 2004. The complaint filed in Essex County was later dismissed, indicating ( according to the Clerk ) an out of court settlement.
So Christie "identified himself as the US Attorney to the officer who did not issue Christie a ticket." Sounds a little like "throwing his weight around." (And claiming there was no lawsuit when one was settled out of court- apparently it depends on what the meaning of "lawsuit" is.)
Describing the more recentlying motor vehicle incident, the Philadelphia Inquirer noted
Some of his comments yesterday contradicted earlier accounts. Lambertville Police Director Bruce Cocuzza had reported that Christie got loud during the stop, but Christie described his demeanor only as "affirmative."
He's a former United States Attorney, with little else to qualify him to run one of the largest states in the nation. Not only does he- yes- throw his weight around, Chris Christie challenges the description given by a law enforcement official of a motor vehicle stop, implying that he was far more forthcoming than did the Police Director. That would seem to be cause for concern for New Jersey residents. And perhaps that's why an esteemed columnist, claiming objectivity, and the country's foremost newspaper don't want to look too closely at the incidents the Jon Corzine campaign has highlighted.
David Broder was once a good political columnist, and the Beltway insiders blogger Digby refers to as "the Villagers" still respect him, for some reason. As a columnist, he's entitled to his biases. But what's The New York Times' excuse?
Broder wrote yesterday about the gubernatorial race in New Jersey between incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine and Repub challenger Christopher J. Christie. Not about the issues of taxes, education, or health care, but instead
As the Times pointed out, a television ad for Corzine, "about as subtle as a playground taunt," shows Christie "stepping out of an SUV in extreme slow motion, his extra girth moving, just as slowly, in several different directions at once. In case viewers missed the point, a narrator snidely intones" that Christie, the former U.S. attorney for New Jersey, "threw his weight around" to avoid several traffic tickets.
As if that were not enough, Corzine, who is 62 and conspicuously fit, has been running weekend five- and 10-kilometer races in cities around the state to demonstrate that he has kept himself in much better shape than Christie despite the 15-year difference in their ages.
I have no rooting interest in the New Jersey race, but the ad hoc Committee of Journalistic Ethics Enforcers has authorized me to condemn this advertising tactic. I very much fear that if Corzine pulls out a victory next month after trailing Christie for months in the polls, the precedent will be set for a really distasteful tactic -- the "fat boy" ploy.
If you believe, as I do, that the beautiful people already have enough of an advantage in this age of television politics and cable trivia, then the last thing we need is a wave of ads highlighting the fact that others are really ugly.
There are several things wrong with these claims:
- The ad (video below) does not suggest, infer, or imply that Chris Christie is "really ugly." "Fat," if that is what is insinuated here, is not "ugly." The latter refers to something that generally is considered to be overwhelmingly a matter of heredity, and largely beyond one's ability to correct. "Fat" is, well, something else.
- It's not unusual for a candidate to get himself photographed running or engaging in some active exercise- think Reagan riding a horse, GW Bush cutting brush, Obama playing basketball (golf, once the Democratic primaries ended).
- Broder has "no rooting interest in the New Jersey race?" That's arguable, given the parallel he draws between Corzine's ad and Representative Joe Wilson's shout of "you lie" to the President of the United States during a joint session of Congress- and between Chris Christie and Abe Lincoln.
For its part, The Times, in what remarkably was not labeled an "editorial" or "analysis," said:
But the unflattering depictions of Mr. Christie, a Republican who has long struggled with his size, have been the talk of the political world in New Jersey, with Democrats snickering and Christie supporters privately complaining. The governor’s latest ad, which featured the “threw his weight around” line and was expected to be seen by some viewers as many as 10 times, brought sharp reaction, even from those who like Mr. Corzine.
“There’s no subtlety there,” said Bill Baroni, a Republican state senator from Hamilton who lost 130 pounds starting 15 years ago. “That’s not a randomly chosen phrase. It’s purposeful. And it’s offensive.”
Of course, we're not supposed to note that the quote "from those who like Mr. Corzine" came instead from a GOP state legislator, possessing a keen interest in the election of his fellow Republican to the Statehouse. But neither the "old grey lady" nor Broder (no crack here about "grey" in light of David's age) recalled
In 2005, Christie was pulled over for speeding in Lambertville, New Jersey, and was cited for speeding and for driving in an unregistered, uninsured vehicle. The car belonged to Christie's wife, but the registration had expired about two months before.
Lambertville police director Bruce Coccuzza told the radio station that Christie's position as a U.S. attorney was discussed: "He identified himself." Christie's campaign says the candidate does not recall how it came up.
In the car with Christie, according to his campaign and the local police director, were his wife, children, and Michele Brown -- the friend and then-subordinate of Christie's in the U.S. Attorney's office, who has recently resigned because of an undisclosed $46,000 loan that Christie extended to her in 2007. The group was on its way to a football game that night at Christie's alma mater, the University of Delaware.
Normally, it is a strict policy in New Jersey to tow an unregistered car -- and in fact, a tow truck did arrive at the scene, according to the campaign. However, Christie was ultimately allowed to drive home. Coccuzza told the radio station: "From what I recollect I think she (the officer) even said at the time, 'If wasn't for the fact that you had a car full of children this car would be towed.'"
The tickets were marked "NO DEAL," which is traditionally used by police when they feel a driver behaved badly, and that the judge should not go easy in the case. Christie eventually paid a $250 fine, and the registration ticket was dismissed after he produced proper documentation -- though again, Christie's campaign has conceded that the car's registration was expired at the time.
Phone calls to the Coccuzza for further clarification were not returned, and we were later told he was not taking any more calls for the day.
A lot of people are bad drivers. But Christie, who apparently "identified himself" as a U.S. attorney to police who found himself somewhat uncooperative, is used to "throwing his weight around." As in this incident, posted in a blog written by New Jersey Network News reporter Zachary Fink:
On July 26, 2002 Christie was driving a leased BMW in the city of Elizabeth.
He was on his way to a swearing in ceremony for the Union County Prosecutor. But Christie apparently got a little lost. When he got to the intersection of Murray street and Clinton, he edged out and made a partial right turn the wrong way on a one way street.
Enter Andre Mendonca. The motorcyclist was riding down Clinton street (the right way ) and when he saw Christie in the intersection, the bike fell on its side and slid into Christie’s car, according to the accident report filed by the officer on the scene.
Mendonca was injured and taken by ambulance to the hospital. Not nearby Trinitas, but UMDNJ in Newark which has a trauma center. Reached by telephone this morning, Mendonca said he had no idea his collision was with the man who is now the Republican candidate for Governor. When I started to ask him questions about the accident, he said he “shouldn’t be talking about it.” Mendonca did say that Christie seemed very concerned for his well being and blamed bad signage at the intersection for what happened. Then he hung up on me.
Christie identified himself as the US Attorney to the officer who did not issue Christie a ticket. One Elizabeth official said that the officer then drove Christie to the swearing in ceremony.
News of this accident comes on the heels of an earlier story about Christie being pulled over for speeding in Lambertville ( see earlier posts).
We asked Christie about the accident in Atlantic City Friday and he was very curt with his answers. NJN South Jersey Bureau Chief Kent St. John asked if there was a lawsuit. Christie said “no” then “nope.”
But actually there was. According to the Superior Court Record Center in Trenton, Mendonca filed suit in 2004. The complaint filed in Essex County was later dismissed, indicating ( according to the Clerk ) an out of court settlement.
So Christie "identified himself as the US Attorney to the officer who did not issue Christie a ticket." Sounds a little like "throwing his weight around." (And claiming there was no lawsuit when one was settled out of court- apparently it depends on what the meaning of "lawsuit" is.)
Describing the more recent
Some of his comments yesterday contradicted earlier accounts. Lambertville Police Director Bruce Cocuzza had reported that Christie got loud during the stop, but Christie described his demeanor only as "affirmative."
He's a former United States Attorney, with little else to qualify him to run one of the largest states in the nation. Not only does he- yes- throw his weight around, Chris Christie challenges the description given by a law enforcement official of a motor vehicle stop, implying that he was far more forthcoming than did the Police Director. That would seem to be cause for concern for New Jersey residents. And perhaps that's why an esteemed columnist, claiming objectivity, and the country's foremost newspaper don't want to look too closely at the incidents the Jon Corzine campaign has highlighted.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
More Jeb
Jeb Bush was on GOP TV's Fox and Friends on Thursday morning and claimed
I was on the plane yesterday coming up to Washington and I heard someone complain that their child's acne was because of George Bush. Of course last week the Olympics didn't come to Chicago, that was my brother's fault.
Bad enough to suspect that the former Florida governor was making something up. His brother played fast and loose with the facts generally, so it's not shocking that Jeb is cut from the same cloth. (On the plus side, at least it's as significant as making a false connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.)
But J. Bush said also during that interview
And at some point people are going to have to put on their big-boy pants and assume responsibility for the great challenges and opportunities our country has...
Great. Another tough-guy, macho Bush. But as to the substance of his remark, the inference that at least GW Bush wore "big-boy pants," Blue Texan that same day posted a great response on firedoglake.com, noting these news items:
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
"I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush told reporters in Uganda.
"Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. … We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," saith the President.
"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. "Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals."
I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived," he [Bush] said.
It appears that President Bush spent eight years failing to fit into those "big-boy pants."
Mr. Bush is right when he says "a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street" preceded his administration. But not all of them, and the "I blew it, but so had they" excuse doesn't quite cut it. And despite continual claims by former members of the administration- rarely if ever challenged by the media- that Mr. Bush inherited a recession, the recession did not begin until March 2001. A minor point, perhaps- but Republican loyalists, were they concerned about the truth, would argue that the seeds of recession already had been planted, rather than dishonestly claiming that it was inherited by their guy.
The most interesting claim made by the President, oft repeated by Condoleezza Rice, is that the incoming administration was "not left a comprehensive strategy to fight" Al Qaeda.
Apparently, that depends on what the meaning of "comprehensive" is. In the first week of January, 2001 Richard Clarke, chairman of the inter-agency Counter-Terrorism Security Group, gave a briefing on terrorism to smooth the transition between the outgoing and incoming administrations. As Time Magazine reported in August, 2002
....Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime....
The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.
By then it was too late- except for George W. Bush himself, who was able to parlay the events of September 11, 2001 into a successfulelection re-election bid.
The Bush Administration- at least the George W. Bush Administration- is now history, of course. But that apparently hasn't stopped his self-serving brother, himself dreaming of the presidency, from attempting to rewrite the record of that period, of the term of a president who was remarkably unwilling to concede fault or failure.
Jeb Bush was on GOP TV's Fox and Friends on Thursday morning and claimed
I was on the plane yesterday coming up to Washington and I heard someone complain that their child's acne was because of George Bush. Of course last week the Olympics didn't come to Chicago, that was my brother's fault.
Bad enough to suspect that the former Florida governor was making something up. His brother played fast and loose with the facts generally, so it's not shocking that Jeb is cut from the same cloth. (On the plus side, at least it's as significant as making a false connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.)
But J. Bush said also during that interview
And at some point people are going to have to put on their big-boy pants and assume responsibility for the great challenges and opportunities our country has...
Great. Another tough-guy, macho Bush. But as to the substance of his remark, the inference that at least GW Bush wore "big-boy pants," Blue Texan that same day posted a great response on firedoglake.com, noting these news items:
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
"I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services," Bush told reporters in Uganda.
"Nobody organized this country or the international community to fight the terrorist threat that was upon us until 9/11. … We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," saith the President.
"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession," Bush said in a speech at a Mississippi high school. "Then our economy was hit by terrorists. Then our economy was hit by corporate scandals."
I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived," he [Bush] said.
It appears that President Bush spent eight years failing to fit into those "big-boy pants."
Mr. Bush is right when he says "a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street" preceded his administration. But not all of them, and the "I blew it, but so had they" excuse doesn't quite cut it. And despite continual claims by former members of the administration- rarely if ever challenged by the media- that Mr. Bush inherited a recession, the recession did not begin until March 2001. A minor point, perhaps- but Republican loyalists, were they concerned about the truth, would argue that the seeds of recession already had been planted, rather than dishonestly claiming that it was inherited by their guy.
The most interesting claim made by the President, oft repeated by Condoleezza Rice, is that the incoming administration was "not left a comprehensive strategy to fight" Al Qaeda.
Apparently, that depends on what the meaning of "comprehensive" is. In the first week of January, 2001 Richard Clarke, chairman of the inter-agency Counter-Terrorism Security Group, gave a briefing on terrorism to smooth the transition between the outgoing and incoming administrations. As Time Magazine reported in August, 2002
....Clarke, using a Powerpoint presentation, outlined his thinking to Rice. A senior Bush Administration official denies being handed a formal plan to take the offensive against al-Qaeda, and says Clarke's materials merely dealt with whether the new Administration should take "a more active approach" to the terrorist group. (Rice declined to comment, but through a spokeswoman said she recalled no briefing at which Berger was present.) Other senior officials from both the Clinton and Bush administrations, however, say that Clarke had a set of proposals to "roll back" al-Qaeda. In fact, the heading on Slide 14 of the Powerpoint presentation reads, "Response to al Qaeda: Roll back." Clarke's proposals called for the "breakup" of al-Qaeda cells and the arrest of their personnel. The financial support for its terrorist activities would be systematically attacked, its assets frozen, its funding from fake charities stopped. Nations where al-Qaeda was causing trouble—Uzbekistan, the Philippines, Yemen—would be given aid to fight the terrorists. Most important, Clarke wanted to see a dramatic increase in covert action in Afghanistan to "eliminate the sanctuary" where al-Qaeda had its terrorist training camps and bin Laden was being protected by the radical Islamic Taliban regime....
The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush.
By then it was too late- except for George W. Bush himself, who was able to parlay the events of September 11, 2001 into a successful
The Bush Administration- at least the George W. Bush Administration- is now history, of course. But that apparently hasn't stopped his self-serving brother, himself dreaming of the presidency, from attempting to rewrite the record of that period, of the term of a president who was remarkably unwilling to concede fault or failure.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Limbaugh's Comment Emphatically Repudiated
The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. And he's going around the world and saying, you know what? Our country sucked. Until nine months ago, and I ask you to look at all the positive things we've done in my administration. So he goes over there, and the world rejects Obama, the world rejects Chicago, and they obviously enjoyed doing it.
It's a good thing I didn't comment about this portion of Rush Limbaugh's rant of October 2, 2009 about the failure of President Obama with his trip to Copenhagen to have effected delivery to the U.S.A. of the 2016 summer Olympics. I think (or, rather, thought) that there was something to Limbaugh's suggestion that there is greater antipathy in the world toward the United States than love for Barack Obama- or at least the hostility is more significant, more likely to have an impact in international relations.
Well, an announcement early this morning was instructive: if you (or I) have an impulse to agree with Rush, ignore it. Let it pass. Reject it, even. Everyone has heard:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a stunning decision that comes just eight months into his presidency.
Less than nine months into his presidency, Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise.
Yes, me too. By the time anyone reads this post, Limbaugh's radio program will already have begun on Friday. Obviously, he will roundly condemn this decision and President Obama's foreign policy. But.... Rush's very effort to suggest that Obama's selection was unworthy demonstrates the fallacy of his statement The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. If President Obama's achievements thus far are limited, the choice of the American president for the Peace Prize drives home more definitively the reality that the "world" likes him very, very much.
The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. And he's going around the world and saying, you know what? Our country sucked. Until nine months ago, and I ask you to look at all the positive things we've done in my administration. So he goes over there, and the world rejects Obama, the world rejects Chicago, and they obviously enjoyed doing it.
It's a good thing I didn't comment about this portion of Rush Limbaugh's rant of October 2, 2009 about the failure of President Obama with his trip to Copenhagen to have effected delivery to the U.S.A. of the 2016 summer Olympics. I think (or, rather, thought) that there was something to Limbaugh's suggestion that there is greater antipathy in the world toward the United States than love for Barack Obama- or at least the hostility is more significant, more likely to have an impact in international relations.
Well, an announcement early this morning was instructive: if you (or I) have an impulse to agree with Rush, ignore it. Let it pass. Reject it, even. Everyone has heard:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, a stunning decision that comes just eight months into his presidency.
Less than nine months into his presidency, Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
The Norwegian Nobel Committee said it honored Obama for his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."
The decision appeared to catch most observers by surprise.
Yes, me too. By the time anyone reads this post, Limbaugh's radio program will already have begun on Friday. Obviously, he will roundly condemn this decision and President Obama's foreign policy. But.... Rush's very effort to suggest that Obama's selection was unworthy demonstrates the fallacy of his statement The people of the world hate this country more than they like him, and they don't like him all that much. If President Obama's achievements thus far are limited, the choice of the American president for the Peace Prize drives home more definitively the reality that the "world" likes him very, very much.
Way Off Target
First we had the failed presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush; then the historically failed presidency of George W. Bush. Do we have a Jeb W. Bush presidency in our future? We all better hope not.
Speaking on GOP TV's Fox and Friends on October 8, J. Bush was quoted by swamppolitics.com as claiming, seriously
"I was on the plane yesterday coming up to Washington and I heard someone complain that their child's acne was because of George Bush. Of course last week the Olympics didn't come to Chicago, that was my brother's fault."
The former governor of Florida, apparently failed to name names, recognizing that identifying any of these naysayers would open his silly comments to examination. Here, certainly, are a few individuals he was not referring to:
Rick Moran, in the conservative pajamasmedia.com: "He placed the prestige of his presidency directly on the line and failed. That’s the bottom line. He gambled with the one thing no president should ever gamble with unless the stakes are much higher than his hometown getting the Olympic games."
Michelle Malkin, posting on her blog: "Goodbye, 'yes, we can.' Hell, 'no, you can't.'"
Glenn Beck, on his syndicated radio program: "He just gave a speech yesterday and he said, look, it's important. I am the guy I am here to bring the whole world together. I am here to I can I got the whole world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got... what? Oh, crap."
Lou Dobbs, on his syndicated radio program: "Lots of folks are going to be going to Rio because they won the 2016 Olympics and Chicago -- Chicago, well, they were smeared, they were wiped out...."
William Kristol, on Fox News Sunday, quoted by Think Progress: Come walk with us. I’m here for America. Can you imagine if some Republican — if Bush had done this and we hadn’t gotten it? Typical Bush heavy-handedness, cowboy unilateralist, hegemonic imperialist action. Obama falls into that trap and they went for it. I must say you couldn’t help be amused by it."
And of course, Rush Limbaugh:
Oh, man, oh, man, oh, man. The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks, the ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama! Chicago, the least number of votes, first elimination in the round of voting for the Olympics in 2016. When you stop to think about it, folks, doesn't it make sense? Our president, "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm," had been running around the world for nine months telling everybody how much our country sucks. He's been running around the world apologizing for the United States of America. Why would anybody award the Olympics to such a crappy place as the United States? Oh, man, folks. I wonder how victory looks to Obama now that it has escaped him and passed him by. He doesn't want to win in Afghanistan but he certainly wanted to win in Chicago. I think the world apparently wants the guy to fail. Because Obama has failed, the world rejected Obama first of all the people, the world rejected Michelle (My Belle) Obama, the world rejected The Oprah....
Folks, the worst day of his presidency....
Now, you do have to ask yourself a question. You do have to ask a serious question here. Is this guy, at the end of the day, a blithering moron?
It wasn't only the right-wing. Even the Associated Press got into the act, calculating
President Barack Obama's failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.
Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.
The criticism of President Obama's foray into Olympic politics began prior to the trip, Media Matters pointing to the negative comments of talk show host Sean Hannity, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, and, as expected, various figures on GOP TV. At least these guys and gals, commenting before the trip, weren't at that point grabbing at the low-hanging fruit, but indicative of the critical analysis of Barack Obama for making the trip.
And on and on and on. Did you see all those references to President George W. Bush in those statements? No, because no one blamed Mr. Bush for the loss of the 2016 Olympics- or if he/she did, it's incumbent on Jeb Bush to call the individual out. But Jeb Bush, displaying as much courage as his brother did skill in running the country, did not and will not.
next up: "El Rushbo" said in his rant something particularly relevant to the news of today. Then, more Jeb.
First we had the failed presidency of George Herbert Walker Bush; then the historically failed presidency of George W. Bush. Do we have a Jeb W. Bush presidency in our future? We all better hope not.
Speaking on GOP TV's Fox and Friends on October 8, J. Bush was quoted by swamppolitics.com as claiming, seriously
"I was on the plane yesterday coming up to Washington and I heard someone complain that their child's acne was because of George Bush. Of course last week the Olympics didn't come to Chicago, that was my brother's fault."
The former governor of Florida, apparently failed to name names, recognizing that identifying any of these naysayers would open his silly comments to examination. Here, certainly, are a few individuals he was not referring to:
Rick Moran, in the conservative pajamasmedia.com: "He placed the prestige of his presidency directly on the line and failed. That’s the bottom line. He gambled with the one thing no president should ever gamble with unless the stakes are much higher than his hometown getting the Olympic games."
Michelle Malkin, posting on her blog: "Goodbye, 'yes, we can.' Hell, 'no, you can't.'"
Glenn Beck, on his syndicated radio program: "He just gave a speech yesterday and he said, look, it's important. I am the guy I am here to bring the whole world together. I am here to I can I got the whole world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got the whole wide world in my hand, I got... what? Oh, crap."
Lou Dobbs, on his syndicated radio program: "Lots of folks are going to be going to Rio because they won the 2016 Olympics and Chicago -- Chicago, well, they were smeared, they were wiped out...."
William Kristol, on Fox News Sunday, quoted by Think Progress: Come walk with us. I’m here for America. Can you imagine if some Republican — if Bush had done this and we hadn’t gotten it? Typical Bush heavy-handedness, cowboy unilateralist, hegemonic imperialist action. Obama falls into that trap and they went for it. I must say you couldn’t help be amused by it."
And of course, Rush Limbaugh:
Oh, man, oh, man, oh, man. The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks, the ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama! Chicago, the least number of votes, first elimination in the round of voting for the Olympics in 2016. When you stop to think about it, folks, doesn't it make sense? Our president, "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm," had been running around the world for nine months telling everybody how much our country sucks. He's been running around the world apologizing for the United States of America. Why would anybody award the Olympics to such a crappy place as the United States? Oh, man, folks. I wonder how victory looks to Obama now that it has escaped him and passed him by. He doesn't want to win in Afghanistan but he certainly wanted to win in Chicago. I think the world apparently wants the guy to fail. Because Obama has failed, the world rejected Obama first of all the people, the world rejected Michelle (My Belle) Obama, the world rejected The Oprah....
Folks, the worst day of his presidency....
Now, you do have to ask yourself a question. You do have to ask a serious question here. Is this guy, at the end of the day, a blithering moron?
It wasn't only the right-wing. Even the Associated Press got into the act, calculating
President Barack Obama's failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.
Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.
The criticism of President Obama's foray into Olympic politics began prior to the trip, Media Matters pointing to the negative comments of talk show host Sean Hannity, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, the Media Research Center's Brent Bozell, and, as expected, various figures on GOP TV. At least these guys and gals, commenting before the trip, weren't at that point grabbing at the low-hanging fruit, but indicative of the critical analysis of Barack Obama for making the trip.
And on and on and on. Did you see all those references to President George W. Bush in those statements? No, because no one blamed Mr. Bush for the loss of the 2016 Olympics- or if he/she did, it's incumbent on Jeb Bush to call the individual out. But Jeb Bush, displaying as much courage as his brother did skill in running the country, did not and will not.
next up: "El Rushbo" said in his rant something particularly relevant to the news of today. Then, more Jeb.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Pagans Of The Right
It all could be a joke, an elaborate ruse intended to make liberals look ridiculous as we ridicule what is almost too astonishing to be real.
But I'll play along. Wikipedia describes conservapedia as "an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view." Conservapedia's own website announces the "Conservative Bible Project" to counter the "Liberal bias (which) has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations." The Bible will berewritten re-translated according to these ten guidelines:
1.Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2.Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3.Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4.Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5.Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6.Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7.Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8.Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9.Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10.Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Conservapedia describes theBible conventional translations of the Bible as "liberal falsehood," "dishonestly shrewd," and "socialism." (Wouldn't this be "liberal falsehoods," "dishonest shrewdeness," and "socialism"; or "falsely liberal," "dishonestly shrewd," and "socialistic"?- oh, never mind.) An example of the latter is use of the "conservative word 'volunteer'" once in the English Standard Version while "the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times."
Mike Lux at Open Left notes it is "re-translating the Bible to make it fit better with conservative ideology in which "you find something inconvenient or tricky in a beloved text, just get rid of it. Next up: The Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address." Little Green Footballs claims the effort is "a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes." Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos contends "these jokes are now setting out to rewrite the Bible to better ratify their own hate and bigotry. It's nothing new for religion -- people have been reinterpreting holy texts from pretty much every religion imaginable to justify all manners of horrors."
Unfortunately, these two views from the left suggest an unfortunate bias against Scripture. Conservapedia's scheme is not "a tacit admission that the Bible is not.... the literal word of God," given that "admission" is the "acknowledgement of the truth of something." And Moulitsas' remark that "people have been reinterpreting holy texts..... to justify all manners of horrors" implies that the thrust of translation of "holy texts" actually has been an effort to justify those horrors. That is, apparently unbeknownst to Moulitsas, not the purpose of the ongoing efforts of biblical translation. While he properly scolds these conservatives for rewriting the Bible to eliminate alleged liberal bias, he carelessly infers they should "adjust their belief structure to better line up with the actual Bible."
No, the right would argue, our belief structure already lines up with the Bible, at least on the matters of abortion and gay rights. That is an arguable proposition, as is the insistence that one's views on 20th century issues should be dictated by words, which do not bear directly on those issues, spoken/written by God/human beings nearly 2000 years ago. Liberals have spent several years, and much emotion, arguing that one's perspective on those things need not be dictated by the biblical interpretation of some scholars and many ideologues.
Nicole Belle at Crooks And Liars, then, is the most judicious, explaining
These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.
They are ideologues; coincidentally of a Christian perspective, perhaps not, but clearly individuals who wish to subordinate to political doctrine any religious faith they possess. They have a right to these priorities; still, their project is not an admission that the Bible is not the literal word of God, given that the jury is still out on that issue. Nor should these ideologues be credited with legitimately attempting to forge a translation consistent with their politics. Their goal is not even a literal translation, but apparently a dynamic equivalence, at the expense of accuracy. It is a feeble and inglorious attempt to refute biblical Christianity, wrapped in a misleading vessel.
It all could be a joke, an elaborate ruse intended to make liberals look ridiculous as we ridicule what is almost too astonishing to be real.
But I'll play along. Wikipedia describes conservapedia as "an English-language wiki-based Web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric, conservative Christian and predominantly young earth creationist point of view." Conservapedia's own website announces the "Conservative Bible Project" to counter the "Liberal bias (which) has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations." The Bible will be
1.Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2.Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3.Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4.Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5.Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6.Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7.Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8.Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9.Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10.Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Conservapedia describes the
Mike Lux at Open Left notes it is "re-translating the Bible to make it fit better with conservative ideology in which "you find something inconvenient or tricky in a beloved text, just get rid of it. Next up: The Declaration of Independence and Gettysburg Address." Little Green Footballs claims the effort is "a tacit admission that the Bible itself is not the unchangeable, literal word of God, but can be edited as necessary to fit political purposes." Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos contends "these jokes are now setting out to rewrite the Bible to better ratify their own hate and bigotry. It's nothing new for religion -- people have been reinterpreting holy texts from pretty much every religion imaginable to justify all manners of horrors."
Unfortunately, these two views from the left suggest an unfortunate bias against Scripture. Conservapedia's scheme is not "a tacit admission that the Bible is not.... the literal word of God," given that "admission" is the "acknowledgement of the truth of something." And Moulitsas' remark that "people have been reinterpreting holy texts..... to justify all manners of horrors" implies that the thrust of translation of "holy texts" actually has been an effort to justify those horrors. That is, apparently unbeknownst to Moulitsas, not the purpose of the ongoing efforts of biblical translation. While he properly scolds these conservatives for rewriting the Bible to eliminate alleged liberal bias, he carelessly infers they should "adjust their belief structure to better line up with the actual Bible."
No, the right would argue, our belief structure already lines up with the Bible, at least on the matters of abortion and gay rights. That is an arguable proposition, as is the insistence that one's views on 20th century issues should be dictated by words, which do not bear directly on those issues, spoken/written by God/human beings nearly 2000 years ago. Liberals have spent several years, and much emotion, arguing that one's perspective on those things need not be dictated by the biblical interpretation of some scholars and many ideologues.
Nicole Belle at Crooks And Liars, then, is the most judicious, explaining
These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.
They are ideologues; coincidentally of a Christian perspective, perhaps not, but clearly individuals who wish to subordinate to political doctrine any religious faith they possess. They have a right to these priorities; still, their project is not an admission that the Bible is not the literal word of God, given that the jury is still out on that issue. Nor should these ideologues be credited with legitimately attempting to forge a translation consistent with their politics. Their goal is not even a literal translation, but apparently a dynamic equivalence, at the expense of accuracy. It is a feeble and inglorious attempt to refute biblical Christianity, wrapped in a misleading vessel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
