Saudi Straglehold

This is the first time ever that I agree with National Review editor Rich Lowry and Reza Aslan (who seem to agree with three former or current members of Congress.) It will be the last time ever. And it might be the last time ever I agree with either one of them.

Aslan would not enjoy Lowry's "Of Course It Is Islam," appearing in Politico Magazine. But there is an odd convergence in one of Lowry's statements and one of the Aslan's major themes.

Lowry believes "the point is that there is a broad war of ideas within Islam between the forces of reaction and violence and the forces of moderation and modernity."  In response, he argues

Perhaps the administration’s highest-profile initiative in response to Paris is a Summit on (what else?) Countering Violent Extremists. It seeks “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence.”

Who are these violent extremists with such magnetic pull and global reach? They could be anybody, to believe the administration. It is certainly true that you will always have random haters and nuts, including Christian nuts like the evil Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. And it is certainly true that there are a few non-Islamic groups on the State Department terrorism list.

But they aren’t top of mind, and for good reason. The Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo isn’t launching many attacks on the West. Basque terrorists aren’t recruiting would-be operatives around the world to come back to Spain and learn how to make bombs for spectacular attacks overseas (in fact, the ETA has declared a cease-fire).

This, and Lowry's reminder "On the ground, Muslim popular sentiment often is, at the very least, inconsistent with modernity," lands him on the solid ground occupied by Bill Maher, and abhorred by Aslan. But Lowry adds "Saudi Arabia, the Sunni counterpart of Shia Iran that also imagines itself the keeper of the faith, promotes a harsh version of Islam that has proved a potent breeding ground for terrorism. Are the Saudis not Muslim, either?"

A critic of Christianity who usually doubles as a Muslim apologist, Aslan nonetheless also questions the Wahabbi state, noting Sunday on Meet the Press

There’s no question that there has been a virus that has spread throughout the Muslim world, a virus of ultra-orthodox puritanism.  But there’s also no question what the source of this virus is — whether we’re talking about Boko Haram, or ISIS, or al Qaeda, or the Taliban.

All of them have as their source Wahhabism, or the state religion of Saudi Arabia. And as we all know, Saudi Arabia has spent over $100 billion in the past 20 or 30 years spreading this ideology throughout the world.

And there are very real consequences of Saudi behavior.  At a news conference (video and excerpts below from 28pages.org) in Washington on January 7, Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC) and Steven Lynch (D-Mass) appeared at a news conference to announce introduction of their resolution (introduced also in the previous Congress) to declassify the 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into the Terrorist Attacks of September, 2001. They were joined by Bob Graham, then a Senator from Florida and member of the committee.

Co-chairpersons Graham and Richard Shelby (R-Ga) in December 2002 released the report to the White House for final review. Six months later, Graham noted at the news conference, the declassified version was released and "we were shocked to see that an important chapter in the report had not been redacted, that is, as Congressman Lynch and Congressman Jones said, a word or a phrase here or there, but an entire chapter."

Danger to national security is the excuse given for redacting the 28 pages. But, Graham continued (emphasis his), "As the two Congressmen have just said, they both read the report — not 12 years ago, as I participated in writing the report — but they have read it recently, and have both come to the same conclusion that we did, a dozen years ago, that there is no threat to national security in disclosure."

The Florida Democrat explained

The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions. Second, the Saudis know that weknow what they did! Somebody in the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the Federal government has read all the other documents that have been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.

What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew what they had done, and they also observed that the United States had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been, for more than a decade?

Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated their support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism, throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And second, they have supported their religious fervor, with financial and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. 

The Obama Administration  in September launched against the Islamic State in the Levant an offensive which, though righteous in motive and aim, was concerning given the possibility it was a diversion and hence unlikely to achieve its objectives.   The institutions of which Graham spoke on January 7,  he noted, "have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the latest creature!"

The ex-Senator spoke for many people, but apparently few inside the Beltway, when he argued

Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a cause—it is a consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia, and if it is crushed, there will be another institution established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.

The regime in Riyadh is not chastened. The Guardian reports

Raif Badawi, the Saudi liberal convicted of publishing a blog, has been told he will again be flogged 50 times on Friday – the second part of his 1,000-lash sentence which also includes a 10-year jail term.

The US, Britain and other western governments had all called for the punishment to be dropped but there has been no sign of any diplomatic action against Riyadh.Amnesty International on Wednesday urged the UK government to challenge Saudi Arabia, which has ignored all protests over the case.

Badawi will be given 50 more lashes outside a mosque in his home city of Jeddah unless a Saudi prison doctor determines he is not yet fit to face the punishmentowing to injuries sustained last Friday. If nothing changes, he will be flogged every Friday for the next 19 weeks.

Badawi’s wife, Ensaf Haidar, who is now in Canada, has said she fears he may not be able to physically withstand a second round. “Raif told me he is in a lot of pain after his flogging, his health is poor,” she told Amnesty. “I told our children about the news last week so that they would not find out about it from friends at school. It is a huge shock for them. International pressure is crucial; I believe if we keep up the support it will eventually pay off.”

The first floggings attracted huge attention and anger because they followed the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris and intense discussion of the freedom of expression and Muslim sensitivities about portraying the prophet Muhammad. Saudi Arabia publicly condemned the killings.

British ministers “rightly celebrate free speech in Paris or in London but suddenly seem to lose their own power of utterance when it comes to forthrightly and publicly condemning the authorities in Riyadh,” said Kate Allen, Amnesty International’s UK director. “Why do ministers keep wearing the Saudi muzzle? It seriously weakens the UK’s credibility if it’s seen to tone everything down when it comes to oil-rich Saudi Arabia.”

A Saudi analyst, in light of the murders of the Charlie Hebdo journalists, told the Guardian, "it's not good PR for the kingdom." Yet, it may matter little, because it's not only the United Kingdom, but also the world's greatest- and arguably, sole- superpower, the United States, which are shielding the Saudis.

USA administrations come, and they go. But the last two have in common one major foreign policy objective, to protect the regime which Rich Lowry, Reza Aslan, Bob Graham, Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch and too few others recognize as an extremely powerful obstacle to stopping the spread of terrorism worldwide.










Share |

Climate Fantasy

It really isn't fair. It isn't fair to criticize Illinois' Mark Kirk, who is more sensible than many of the others- oh, say 54- Republicans in the U.S. Senate.

But when last week, in an interview with a trade publication in the context of Keystone XL, Kirk date state

We had the previous warming period, which was called the global optimum, and the best way to talk about that is when Leif Erickson went west from his home, he discovered a landmass that he called Greenland, because it was," Kirk said after a Senate Republicans' lunch to discuss legislation to build the Keystone Pipeline. "And that was called the global optimum, because the planet was much warmer. By calling Greenland 'green land,' we know that the climate has been changing pretty regularly within recorded memory.

It would appear this large land mass and country was given its name by early Scandinavian settlers, including Erik the Red (not a Communist, nor a Republican), who figured that name would attract additional settlers. It was  understandably a tough sell because 

Greenland is famous for its massive glaciers, but the region was relatively free of ice until about 2.7 million years ago, according to a new study. Before then, the Northern Hemisphere had been mostly ice-free for more than 500 million years, the researchers said.

The Greenland ice sheet began building after plate tectonics and the Earth's shifting tilt reshaped the region, the researchers found. The team narrowed the cause down to three factors: plate tectonics that lifted the region, creating soaring snow-capped mountain peaks; a northward drift from plate tectonics; and a shift in the Earth's axis that caused Greenland to move farther north, away from the sun's warmth.  

"Our work was motivated by the question of why extensive glaciations of Greenland started only during the past few million years," the researchers wrote in the study.

Alright, then. Greenland was really green 2.7 million years ago, which would be slightly unsettling to the young earth creationists vying with the Big Money Boyz for  control of the G.O.P.  But 2,697,886 B.C. was a really long time ago.

Still, it was inaccurate for the Environmental Defense Fund in a statement to charge "A forward-thinking environmental moderate back when he served in the House, Kirk's record has badly deteriorated in the Senate.... And this week, he sounded like Rush Limbaugh." At least Kirk did not contend, as Limbaugh did last July, "the models are the only thing we've that says there's global warming. There is no data. There is no empirical data. There's zilch, zero, nada. It's all based on model forecasts for 2100, for 2050, for 2075. This is one of the greatest hoaxes ever pulled on people."

The eleven warmest years in the last 134 years have occurred since 1997 (graph below from UK's Met Office via Think Progress). This past year marked the 38th consecutive year that the annual global land and water temperature has been above average. Darn that lack of empirical data.

The GOP is planning a major assault on the rights (via Social Security) of the elderly, of women (via reproductive rights), and on the environment, via the effort through Keystone XL to keep supplies up in Communist China.  Your mileage may vary, but Mark Kirk is easily one of the best, most reasonable 3 or 4 members of the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate.  That is not a good sign.

Share |

Hen (Temporarily) Withdraws From Chicken Coop

Senator Elizabeth Warren (with a little help), that mean troublemaker from Massachusetts, has gone and done it again (video from The Young Turks/Secular Talk).




 




Jennifer Bendery at The Huffington Post reported yesterday

Wall Street banker Antonio Weiss has asked President Barack Obama not to renominate him to a top Treasury Department post because of the fight being waged against him by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats.

First reported by Politico, Weiss wrote to Obama over the weekend saying that he didn't think the Treasury Department "would be well served" by the lengthy confirmation process his nomination would likely entail, given the level of Democratic opposition he has faced. Weiss, who had initially been nominated as undersecretary for domestic finance, has instead accepted a job as a counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, a post that doesn't require congressional approval....

The White House was not pleased Weiss was pressured to resign and the investment banker will instead be handed the position of Counselor to the Treasury Secretary.  Bendery continued

In Weiss' new role, he will provide Treasury officials with advice on domestic and international issues, including financial markets, regulatory reform, job creation and fostering broad-based economic growth, according to Lew's statement.

The news is a major victory for Warren and progressive groups who have been criticizing Weiss's nomination since November, when Warren first wrote an op-ed railing against the revolving door between Wall Street and government regulators. She argued that Weiss, a senior banker at financial giant Lazard whose work centered on international mergers, isn't even qualified for a job that involves overseeing consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at Treasury....

Warren said Monday that it is imperative for Treasury to focus its energy on strengthening the enforcement of consumer protections on Wall Street.

"We’ve already seen that the new Republican Congress is going to aggressively attack the Dodd-Frank Act. It is critical that the Treasury Department defend the Act from those attacks and push for strong implementation and enforcement of the law," she said in a statement. "The risk of another financial crisis remains too high, and we should be strengthening financial reforms, not rolling them back to benefit Wall Street.”

In recent weeks, more than half a dozen Democratic senators announced they couldn't support Weiss for the post because of his overly close ties to Wall Street. The progressive activist group CREDO, meanwhile, collected more than 160,000 signatures on a petition to senators urging them to oppose Weiss.

Politico's Ben White writes

“It’s really a shame,” said Tony Fratto, partner at Hamilton Place Strategies and a Treasury and White House official under President George W. Bush. “It’s embarrassing for the Obama Administration. Terrible for Treasury — including the eventual under secretary, who will have the preferred nominee in the building. It’s terrible for Weiss, to leave his career behind and not get the job. The things we put nominees through only to be upended by ill-informed, myopic demagoguery. The White House should have fought for him.”

"That's rich," Daily Kos' Joan McCarter comments, "coming from one of the officials who oversaw the worst economic crisis the nation has faced since the Great Depression, caused by a banking industry he and his fellow Treasury officials failed to regulate." Still, Fratto is correct- it is terrible for Weiss (explanation below from Mike Papantonio with Thom Hartmann), for as Bendery added

Weiss also stood to gain $20 million from Lazard if he got confirmed for the Treasury post, a payout for not going to a competing financial group. That left some uncomfortable that Weiss would be inclined to give favorable treatment to his former firm.

Weiss is far less experienced in domestic finance than in promoting corporate inversions, in which a company based in the USA gains major tax advantages by combining with a foreign company and thereby renouncing its citizenship (explanation below from Mike Papantonio with Thom Hartmann). He now will be placed in a position requiring no congressional approval. Given the right's complaints a few years ago that the President had acquired innumerable czars, there now will be cries of condemnation in the coming days from Republicans outraged that yet another Wall Street figure  will find a home in the Obama Administration.   When that happens, look for a blizzard in Key West.













Share |

Bill Maher And Pope Francis- (Almost) Perfect Together

It's another week, and another opportunity to defend Bill Maher, though this time not over Islam but over the head of the Roman Catholic Church.  Charles Pierce, in the colorful way only he can, explains

While I think the process of Making Saints is rife with corruption and medievalism, it does occasionally serve to remind us who the real heroes were, and who the real monsters were.

Archbishop Romero was assassinated while serving Mass in El Salvador in 1980 by Right-wing death squads. His murder came a day after he had said in a homily that soldiers should obey God's commands and put down their guns. Archbishop Romero's Cause was opened at the Vatican two decades ago but was delayed for years as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith studied his writings, amid debate over whether he had been killed for his faith or for political reasons. In 2013 Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family and official promoter of Archbishop Romero's Cause, said the process had been "unblocked."Last year Robert Mickens of Global Pulse said that Archbishop Romero will "almost certainly" be beatified in 2015, and that Francis may skip the beatification and canonise him in San Salvador.

Gee. It was "blocked" for two decades and suddenly, it became "unblocked." Wonder who could have been "blocking" it.

This is more than a vindication for Romero. It is a vindication for the entire roiling, revolutionary Christianity that sprung up all over the Western-sponsored oligarchies in Central and South America, including liberation theology, with which Papa Francesco has more than a passing acquaintance and in which he has evinced more than a passing interest. Moreover, it is an overdue kick to the nuts directed at all those cafeteria Catholics who signed on to the criminal savagery that the Reagan Administration subcontracted in that same region. Romero was killed primarily on the orders of Roberto D'Aubuisson, a real prize of a war criminal.

The ordering of the murder was blamed on the bogeyman of the story, a military intelligence officer called Major Roberto D'Aubuisson who had, conveniently for Washington, recently left the army. In the weeks before the murder, he was repeatedly on television using military intelligence files to denounce "guerrillas". Those he accused were often murdered. Romero was near the top of the list. But US promises to bring justice came to nothing. With no trigger-man, gun or witnesses, officials claimed lack of evidence. D'Aubuisson went on to become one of El Salvador's most successful politicians before throat cancer killed him at the end of the civil war 12 years later - the revenge of God, many concluded.

D'Aubuisson was trained at the notorious School of the Americas at Fort Benning in Georgia. He was noted for his use of blowtorches in his interrogations, which is something that somehow slipped by Dick Cheney. Romero's murder kicked off a horrible wave of extrajudicial violence, including the El Mozote massacre, which was covered up by, among other people, Elliott Abrams, who is out there now screaming about the persecution of Christians, but remains strangely silent on the murder of a bishop in the middle of Mass. 

But then Pierce goes off the rails, remarking

But people like D'Aubuisson and Abrams don't matter now. Oscar Romero, who was a bishop in what Bill Maher assures us is a stupid and dangerous institution, now is fast-tracked to sainthood because his life is finally being recognized as the blessing it was to the people of El Salvador.

"What Bill Maher assures us is a stupid and dangerous institution," Pierce sarcastically observes. Whether the Roman Catholic Church is a stupid and dangerous institution is a matter of opinion, but nothing Pierce writes suggests that he disagrees with Maher that it is a stupid and dangerous institution.

"The process of Making Saints,"  Pierce argues, "is rife with corruption and medievalism." It is also for most of us Protestants (which would not include the nominally Catholic Pierce) based on a false premise. No matter. Pierce recognizes the process of declaring saints is corrupt and medieval. Further, given the Church's practice of proclaiming sainthood, denying sainthood to Archbishop Romer appears- as Pierce strongly implies- to have been done on a largely untenable political basis.

Moreover, Pierce infers Pope Francis is primarily, and ultimately, responsible for the Church's welcome change of heart.   And with that, he snidely notes that Maher believes the RC Church "is a stupid and dangerous institution."

It then is ironic- nay, perverse- that the blogger would criticize Bill Maher when the latter is a big fan of Pope Francis. He is, it ought to be observed, also someone peculiarly qualified to be a booster of His Holiness.

Arguing (persuasively) that Pope Francis and Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders are ideological blood-brothers, Time's Elizabeth Dias recently quoted the Pope as having, at some time since his ascension, remarked

Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.

Inequality is the root of social evil.

We must say ‘We want a just system! A system that enables everyone to get on.’ We must say: ‘We don’t want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm!’

We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal.

While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to states, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good.

While it is unlikely that the progressive and libertine Maher would as much as Sanders agree with the populist pontiff, the comedian would applaud most of that (and far more than would any Repub politician). Additionally, asked about in July, 2013 about the possibility of gay priests, Francis famously replied "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?

Though cautious by the standards of western societies, "who am I to judge" someone who is gay "and searches for the Lord" is fairly radical by Vatican standards. Maher, who supports same-sex marriage and, heartily, sex between any consenting adult, has lauded the Pope's statement.

In this video (from June 2013, but "embedding disabled by request;" inadequate substitute below), Maher maintains "I think the Pope might be an atheist- there, I've said it... He said this  week, Pope Frank, uh, said 'The Lord  has redeemed all of us, not just the Catholics, even the atheists.'"

Whether redemption of individuals (including atheists) leads inexorably to their salvation is a matter of theological interpretation of the concept of redemption. Stephen Kokx of Catholic Vote believes it does not (some disagree) and therefore concluded logically that the Pope did not definitively state that atheists can be saved.

He wrote too soon, for a few months later the Pope, upon being asked whether "the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith," would respond "given that God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience."

Do good and go to heaven, this religious leader contends.  Agree with him or choose not to. But for an atheist like Bill Maher, a Pope who does not think that someone necessarily has to believe in God to go to heaven is truly heartening. For that and other reasons, he likes and respects this pontiff a lot. Consequently, ridiculing Maher in a post favorable to Pope Francis for the latter's extension of mercy (and justice) is off-base nearly to the point of bizarre.

Share |

I Wonder What Bill Maher Thinks Of It?

On Thursday, Digby reminded readers of an attack on 10-22-88 in which right-wing Christian fundamentalists injured 13 people, four of them seriously, when they launched Molotov cocktails inside a crowded theater in Paris to stop a film from being shown. She commented

For that matter, I wonder what Bill Maher thinks of it? After all, he's constantly insisting that in spite of abortion bombings and doctor killings for the past 30 years in America, that Islam is the only religions still killing people in the name of God. 

And apropos of the alleged attack on free speech by North Korea, that film was boycotted by homegrown Christian fundamentalists in the US resulting in a large theater chain refusing to play it. It doesn't take a foreign country or Muslim terrorists the threaten free speech.

As luck would have it, the previous night, Maher had appeared on "Jimmy Kimmel Live" and remarked

I know most Muslim people would not have carried out an attack like thisBut here’s the important point: Hundreds of millions of them support an attack like this. They applaud an attack like this. What they say is, ‘We don’t approve of violence, but you know what? When you make fun of the Prophet, all bets are off....

When a skeptical Kimmel responded "hundreds of millions of Muslims?" the Real Time host maintained

Absolutely.  That is mainstream in the Muslim world. When you make fun of the Prophet, all bets are off. You get what’s coming to you. It’s also mainstream that if you leave the religion, you get what’s coming to you—which is death. Not in every Muslim country… but this is the problem in the world that we have to stand up to.

"Not in every Muslim country" says Maher, thereby acknowledging what precious few of the antagonists in this ongoing debate do, that views vary greatly from one Muslim nation to another. Two nights later, on Real Time, Maher added "Obviously, the vast majority of Muslims would never do anything like this. But they share bad ideas."

Seemingly consistent with the comedian's comments, Rupert Murdoch 51 minutes earlier had
tweeted "Maybe most Moslems peaceful, but until they recognize and destroy their growing jihadist cancer they must be held responsible" (disturbingly, shades of "black-on-black crime").

Maher, however, has stopped short of blaming all Muslims for the atrocities of terrorists.  "What we’ve said all along, and have been called bigots for it," he said last night on Real Time, "is when there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard." That appears to be only a small difference from what the News Corp president said- but it's a significant difference.

"Maybe most Moslems peaceful," Murdoch concedes. But there is no question the vast majority of Muslims- as with Jews, Christians, and Buddhists- are peaceful.  Maher has tried to bring to the forefront two questions:  whether a great many Muslims believe in repulsive anti-democratic principles (they do); and whether Islamism affords a mere pretext or actual justification for terrorist attacks, a truly debatable proposition. Nonetheless, even if Islam does the latter, a Muslim man or woman cannot be held responsible for any "growing jihadist cancer"- except in the twisted minds of Murdoch and some conservatives.

Responsibility for terrorism lies with the terrorists and with the governments which encourage them. Salman Rushdie, a favorite of Maher and guest last night, recognized

This has been a mutation that a lot of work has been put into. Governments, from the Sunni side the Saudi government, on the Shia side the Iranian government, have been putting fortunes of money into making sure that extremist mullahs are preaching in mosques around the world, and in building and developing schools in which a whole generation is being educated in extremism — and trying to prevent other forms of education.

"Homegrown Christian fundamentalists," as Digby emphasized- and Maher frequently notes- also periodically exert their influence to tamp down on freedom of expression.  The AP wiped "Piss Christ" off its website Wednesday, evidently partly in response to a complaint from the conservative Washington Examiner about the 1989 photograph. The magazine- with no sense of irony- had complained that the highly controversial art was still on the AP website after the organization refused to publish Muhammad cartoons from Charlie Hebdo. And so it goes.

Digby did not refer to this incident, nor did Maher when he led (video below) his program on Friday night by rhetorically asking "Hey, who's ready for a little free speech in America?"Not enough people, as we learned this past week in the Arabian peninsula when

A car bomb tore through dozens of Yemenis lined up at a police academy in Sanaa on Wednesday, killing 37 in the latest attack highlighting the country's growing instability.

Police said another 66 people were wounded in what it described as a "terrorist bombing" targeting potential police recruits, in a statement cited by the official Saba news agency.

Unstable and impoverished Yemen has been hit by a wave of violence in recent months, with a powerful Shiite militia, known as Huthis, clashing with Sunni tribal forces and the country's branch of Al-Qaeda.









Share |

Very Presidential, Chris

The Dallas Cowboys-Detroit Lions NFL playoff game last weekend brought out the worst in officiating (videos, below). Some people, especially in the New York-Philadelphia region, fans largely of the East Rutherford, New York Giants and the Philadelphia Eagles, appear shocked to have learned that Chris Christie is a jerk. Shocked! shocked! to find out that gambling is going on in here.









But in reality, Christie's move (video below), while the governor was sitting next to Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, was fairly gruesome. However, although he eventually acknowledged "if you`re thinking of who you want to hand the nuclear football to," it's reasonable to consider the scene, MSNBC's Chris  Hayes misunderstands the nature of Chris Christie's obsession with the Cowboys.







Here is how it transpired- or as public figures are fond of saying these days- "went down"- on Up with Chris Hayes Monday evening:

HAYES: All right. In light of all the grief that Chris Christie is getting for his unapologetic love for the Dallas Cowboys, I`m going to present the rules of sports fandom, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, you may have seen that image because he`s getting a lot of flak for his performance at last night`s wild card game between the Dallas Cowboys and Detroit Lions. After the deciding play that sealed the Cowboys` victory, the camera captured this moment in the box of team owner Jerry Jones.

Now much ridicule has been directed at Christie for the awkward-missed high-five and the orange sweater, seen here, which has apparently been his good luck charm that he`s worn to every one of the last five Cowboys games he`s attended, all of which the team has won.
Well, as well as the questionable ethics of accept lucrative gifts from Jerry Jones, who is a whole other story.

But I will say this, the most scurrilous, unfair charge from which I stand here today to defend Chris Christie is for being a traitor for rooting for the Dallas Cowboys as opposed to the Jets or Giants who, of course, play in his native New Jersey.

A little over a year ago, Christie himself explained his Cowboy`s fandom this way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRIS CHRISTIE, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY: My father was a Giant`s fan. And I used to remember watching them when I was 8, 9 years old. And every Sunday he`d watch the Giants and yell at the TV set. And I used to think to myself why do I want to root for a team that makes you angry? So, I decided not to and the Cowboys were really good back then and I liked Roger Staubach.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: To which I say amen.
And to Chris Christie`s haters, back off. These are the rules of sports fandom. It is not a betrayal to not root for your hometown team. For instance, yours truly was raised in the Bronx, not very far from Yankees stadium. And I am a Cubs, Bulls and Bears fan because my father from the north side of Chicago raised me as such. I`ve been that way my whole life.

There is no shame in rooting for teams outside of your hometown.

But here is the other part of this rule, once you choose in childhood, you cannot change or deviate. That`s the other part of the rule. You must suffer, as I have. Of course, the Cubs are perhaps the most finely engineered machine for producing human misery ever known to man.

And, Chris Christie, well, he`s suffered, too. Perhaps no team in the NFL have created more heartache and disappointment for fans as the Cowboys have in recent years, a team that has a knack for always being tantalizingly close to possible excellence only to revert to mediocrity when it counts.

Christie has said so himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTIE: I`ve been a Cowboys fan the whole time. And when the Cowboys are losing the last game of the year the last three season not to make the playoffs, there`s nobody getting on social media giving me a hard time about being a Cowboys fan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Now if Christie had suddenly abandoned the Cowboys to root for the Giants in the years they were Super Bowl champs well, then, you could hurl all the invective you wanted.

But all the available evidence shows that not to be the case.

So, to Chris Christie`s haters on this point, back off. I firmly and proudly stand with Chris Christie.
And also at least in general spirit, though not int specific word choice, his brother, Todd, who somewhat questionably took to Facebook to say, quote, "all of those non-Cowboys fans who have have their panties in a ringer because the governor of New Jersey is a Cowboys fan, get a life,"

Now, that`s as far as the fandom concerns go. However, I will also say this, if you`re thinking of who you want to hand the nuclear football to, I think it`s totally fair and reasonable to take this scene into account.]

Obviously, high-fiving the owner of a team which is about to win a playoff game, in a scene which he knew would be shown on television and probably replayed repeatedly, is the sports equivalent of Christie's entire in-your-face approach to politics.  But that's too easy.

So, too, is it  obvious that unlike the Hayes' family, Chris Christie has not chosen to root for the hometown team. Hayes states "yours truly was raised in the Bronx, not very far from Yankees stadium. And I am a Cubs, Bulls and Bears fan because my father from the north side of Chicago raised me as such. I've been that way my whole life."

There is no indication the father of Chris Christie, Wilbur James Christie, was born, or ever lived, in Texas. Chris himself was born in Newark, NJ and his family reportedly moved to the tony suburb of Livingston, NJ "after the Newark riots," which occurred five years after the future governor was born.  And even if the governor's father had Texas, or pro-Cowboy roots (which Chris would tout were it the case), that would not be the basis of the son's passion for the Dallas Cowboys.

It even might have turned Chris Christie from the Cowboys.  In delivering the keynote speech (a little Romney, a lot of Christie), the governor admitted

I am the son of an Irish father and a Sicilian mother. My Dad, who I am blessed to have with me here tonight, is gregarious, outgoing and loveable.

My Mom, who I lost eight years ago, was the enforcer. She made sure we all knew who set the rules.

In the automobile of life, Dad was just a passenger. Mom was the driver.

After four sentences about his father, Chris continued

I am her son.

I was her son as I listened to "Darkness on the Edge of Town" with my high school friends on the Jersey Shore.

I was her son as I moved into a studio apartment with Mary Pat to start a marriage that is now 26 years old.

I was her son as I coached our sons Andrew and Patrick on the fields of Mendham, and as I watched with pride as our daughters Sarah and Bridget marched with their soccer teams in the Labor Day parade.

And I am still her son today, as governor, following the rules she taught me: to speak from the heart and to fight for your principles. She never thought you get extra credit for just speaking the truth.

The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: she told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting — but that respect could grow into real, lasting love.

Now, of course, she was talking about women.

Those were Chris Christie's remarks about his mother, and about his father whom he sees as having been along for the ride.

In June of 2013, he told a group of New Jersey students

I was a big fan when I was your age.  I was a big fan of Roger Staubach, who was the quarterback for the Cowboys back then. The Giants and the Jets pretty much stunk when I was a kid and my father was a Giants fan. I used to remember watching him when I was eight, nine years old and every Sunday he would watch the Giants and yell at the TV set. I used to think to myself, 'Why would I want to root for a team that makes you angry?'

Chris Christie doesn't want to root for a team that would make him angry. After all, why would Chris Christie ever want to be angry?





 




Chris Christie is a mother's boy. Of course, that is insignificant, especially compared to being a terrible governor and person. He also is a fanboy, who hasn't grown out of his childhood fascination with a team nearly 1600 miles from his home base.  "I was a big fan when I was your age," he told those students- elementary school students.  His announcement "elicited many boos in the gym" in which he was speaking, demonstrating that even at their age, they were more grown up than their governor.



Share |

After All These Years,He's Still John Ellis Bush

It seems John Ellis Bush, whom the mainstream media is all giddy over because he does not hate gay people, is merely just another Republican. Bush has written

The surest way to get something in today's society is to elevate one's staut to that of the oppressed. Many of the modern victim movements, the gay rights movement, the feminist movement, the black empowerment movement and other movements based on social status or race have attempted to get people to view themselves as part of a smaller group deserving of something from society.... as ace have attempted to get people to view the member as part of a smaller group deservingof something from society rather than....

On Tuesday, Digby commented

Sorry. It turns out that Jeb Bush is just a typical snotty, rich right winger scolding people who have the nerve to complain about being treated like doormats and relegated to second class citizen status in the land of freedom and opportunity. Never mind.

As Digby noted, John Ellis Bush wrote that in 1995. But the experience of the past 19 years and, oh, say, the years of economic crash from 2007 to 2010, have not changed him in the least.

 This was the guy who thrilled the world when in 2012 he maintained 

I don’t think people need to be discriminated against because they don’t share my belief on this, and if people love their children with all their heart and soul and that’s what they do and that’s how they organize their life that should be held up as examples for others to follow because we need it. We desperately need it and that can take all sorts of forms, it doesn’t have to take the one that I think should be sanctioned under law.

At that time, John Ellis Bush apparently believed a man shouldn't be allowed to marry a man, nor a woman marry a woman, but should be viewed as role models if he/she  does.   Now, if we are to believe his most recent statements, he believes people who support same-sex marriage should not be drawn and quartered, as long as we understand they don't believe in religious liberty or the sacrament of marriage.

After a Circuit Judge lifted the stay she had imposed when she ruled unconstitutional Florida's law prohibiting same-sex marriage, Bush boldly declared "It ought be a local decision. I mean, a state decision. The state decided. The people of the state decided. But it's been overturned by the courts, I guess." Following criticism by supporters of same-sex marriage, Bush stated

We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law. I hope that we can show respect for the good people on all sides of the gay and lesbian marriage issue – including couples making lifetime commitments to each other who are seeking greater legal protections and those of us who believe marriage is a sacrament and want to safeguard religious liberty.

At first reading, that is striking as muddled thinking. But it is much worse.

Though John Ellis Bush's concept of marriage as a sacrament is held by many people (and the Roman Catholic Church), a point of view more warm and reassuring than Biblical. it is not held by all Christians, inasmuch as reformed Christianity recognizes only two sacraments, communion and baptism (neither necessary for salvation). Thus, John Ellis Bush (AP photo below by J. Pat Carter via Talking Points Memo), by inferring that "those who believe marriage is a sacrament" oppose same-sex marriage, implies that the universe of opponents is identical to people who believe marriage is a sacrament.

Evangelical Protestants, most of whom oppose gay marriage while believing marriage is not a sacrament, should be outraged. They will not be, however, not only because John Ellis Bush appears to be opposed to such unions, but especially because he has portrayed the right's opponents as hating religious liberty. It is a slick move, born of a failure to understand the variety of Christian belief while nonetheless tarring liberals with opposing religious liberty. Conveniently, that falls right in line with the victimization phobia of the Christian right.

And John Ellis Bush is still a snotty, rich right-winger.

Share |