Glenn Beck gave away the game on his television show when he kept insisting that Nazism was “Nationalist Socialism” or “Nationalized Socialism.” There are no such terms in the dictionary. As every well-educated person knows, the term for the Nazi Party is “National Socialism.” When I heard it, I wondered how Beck could make this glaring mistake, so I looked-up his educational background and found that he had never attended college. He considers himself “self-educated,” but Beck’s mistake indicates that whatever self-education he experienced, it did not make him an educated man.
Discovery of Beck’s lack of education made me look-up the educational accomplishments of two other right-wing media commentators, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Both of them claim to speak with great authority about political matters. Well, it seems that Limbaugh enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University but dropped out after two semesters and one summer. He never went back or graduated from college. According to his mother, Rush “flunked everything," even a modern ballroom dancing class. Now there’s a shocker!
Sean Hannity of Fox News dropped out of New York University and Adelphi University and never graduated from college. He described himself as an “indifferent student.” He looks pretty good on television, but his commentary often gives-away his lack of education.
There is no shame in failing to attend or complete college or in being self-educated. I have met many people who never attended college and were far better educated than most college graduates. Some brilliant people I have known attended but never graduated from college. Instead, they spent the remainder of their lives educating themselves.
Education, whether in college or by one’s self, is not the highest virtue, not even close; but it is a necessity for those who would speak with authority about the pressing issues of our day. The problem with Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity is that they offer opinions on all kinds of political and social matters which require some knowledge. They are all good talkers, but they are neither college educated nor self-educated. They are profoundly uneducated and ignorant men. They give away their ignorance every time they accuse the Obama Administration of being “socialist.” Listening to them is like listening to the guy at the end of the bar who makes stupid statements with firm conviction. To educated people, their ignorance is easy to spot.
The lack of educational achievement by Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity should be compared with the educational attainments of some leading liberal television and radio commentators. Anderson Cooper of CNN graduated from Yale. Keith Olberman of CNBC and Bill Maher of HBO both graduated from Cornell. Rachel Maddow of CNBC graduated from Stanford, was a Rhodes Scholar, and earned a PhD from Oxford. Former TV and radio personality, and now elected U.S. Senator, Al Franken, graduated from Harvard. Stand-up comedian, actress, and former radio personality Janeane Garofalo graduated in 1986 from Providence College with a bachelor's degree in American studies and history.
Compare the meager educational achievements of people in the Bush Administration with the dazzling educational accomplishments of the people in the Obama Administration. Bush got into Yale through family connections, graduated with a C average, and was denied admission to the University of Texas Law School. President Obama graduated from Columbia University and from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. Dick Chaney flunked-out of Yale and later graduated from the University of Wyoming. Vice President Joe Biden graduated from the University of Delaware and Syracuse Law School. Carl Rove dropped out of the University of Utah after two years. David Axelrod graduated from the University of Chicago. Rahm Emmanuel obtained a masters degree from Northwestern University.
There is a pattern here. I am not saying that all conservatives are uneducated, but it seems that on average, liberal media types and political leaders are far better educated than their conservative counterparts. Does that tell you anything?
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Sarah Palin is Back
My biggest problem with Sarah Palin is not her obvious ignorance and lack of education, or rumors of her being a “diva” spread by McCain campaign officials. My problem is her positions on the issues. It seems that she has alienated not only Alaska Democrats, but has also alienated some of the moderate Republicans in her home state.
While Sarah was in Indiana rousing the Republican faithful at a right-to-life dinner, the Republican-controlled legislature in Alaska turned-back her controversial nominee for state attorney general. Her nominee, Wayne Ross, was rejected in a 35-23 vote after a week of damaging confirmation hearings that revealed a string of past controversial comments. It was the first time in Alaskan history that a nominee for the head of a state agency has failed to be confirmed by the Legislature. All of the Democrats in the Legislature voted against Ross and were joined by nine Republicans, including the Senate president and the House speaker.
Ross came under fire for an op-ed piece in which he defended the showing of a Ku Klux Klan statue and mocked a black student who protested the display. In the 1980s, when the Alaskan legislature was considering the creation of a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, he wrote manifestos accusing Dr. King of being a subversive and a communist. He was also criticized for a 1991 quote in which he is reported to have said: "If a guy can’t rape his wife, ...who’s he gonna rape?" Ross, a director of the National Rifle Association, also characterized gays as “immoral” and “degenerate.” He refused to repudiate the remarks about gays during his confirmation hearings, and admitted that he hated them.
Palin said in a statement that she was “surprised” by Ross' rejection. “Mr. Ross is a fine Alaskan,” she said. “He is held in high esteem by many Alaskans. I appreciate his willingness to serve the public.”
There is growing talk of Palin being the Republican candidate for president in 2012. What if Sarah somehow got elected and nominated this creep to be the U.S. Attorney General? Would she and her garbage-mouthed attorney general simply forsake millions of gay Americans? Would they forsake married women? Would they lend support to that despicable gang of moronic losers, the Ku Klux Klan?
One can reasonably assume that having nominated Mr. Ross and defended his nomination even after his past remarks surfaced, Sarah Palin has no problem with his statements. I think that it is reasonable to say that Sarah Palin does not represent mainstream Republicanism. She certainly does not represent mainstream Americanism.
I suspect that there are many people out there who like dim Sarah not because of her obvious good looks, or because of her public-speaking facility, but precisely because of her lack of education. They feel that she is one of them; an ordinary dumb person who shares the intolerances and bigotries handed down by generations of ignorant people. They like the fact that she chooses to turn-down federal stimulus money even though it would benefit many people in Alaska (The Alaskan Legislature rebuffed the governor's rejection of $400 million in federal stimulus funds and, instead, stated that it will accept all of the money).
I suspect that there are also people out there who approve of the kind of statements made by Wayne Ross. They may come out of the woodwork for Republican events, but they are not really Republicans. They like it when somebody erects a Ku Klux Klan statue. They like it when the governor of Texas threatens to secede from the Union. They support the militias and other far-right extremists. I don’t think Sarah Palin is one of them, but her casual indifference to their kind of morally reprehensible rhetoric makes all thought of her accession to the presidency worrisome.
While Sarah was in Indiana rousing the Republican faithful at a right-to-life dinner, the Republican-controlled legislature in Alaska turned-back her controversial nominee for state attorney general. Her nominee, Wayne Ross, was rejected in a 35-23 vote after a week of damaging confirmation hearings that revealed a string of past controversial comments. It was the first time in Alaskan history that a nominee for the head of a state agency has failed to be confirmed by the Legislature. All of the Democrats in the Legislature voted against Ross and were joined by nine Republicans, including the Senate president and the House speaker.
Ross came under fire for an op-ed piece in which he defended the showing of a Ku Klux Klan statue and mocked a black student who protested the display. In the 1980s, when the Alaskan legislature was considering the creation of a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, he wrote manifestos accusing Dr. King of being a subversive and a communist. He was also criticized for a 1991 quote in which he is reported to have said: "If a guy can’t rape his wife, ...who’s he gonna rape?" Ross, a director of the National Rifle Association, also characterized gays as “immoral” and “degenerate.” He refused to repudiate the remarks about gays during his confirmation hearings, and admitted that he hated them.
Palin said in a statement that she was “surprised” by Ross' rejection. “Mr. Ross is a fine Alaskan,” she said. “He is held in high esteem by many Alaskans. I appreciate his willingness to serve the public.”
There is growing talk of Palin being the Republican candidate for president in 2012. What if Sarah somehow got elected and nominated this creep to be the U.S. Attorney General? Would she and her garbage-mouthed attorney general simply forsake millions of gay Americans? Would they forsake married women? Would they lend support to that despicable gang of moronic losers, the Ku Klux Klan?
One can reasonably assume that having nominated Mr. Ross and defended his nomination even after his past remarks surfaced, Sarah Palin has no problem with his statements. I think that it is reasonable to say that Sarah Palin does not represent mainstream Republicanism. She certainly does not represent mainstream Americanism.
I suspect that there are many people out there who like dim Sarah not because of her obvious good looks, or because of her public-speaking facility, but precisely because of her lack of education. They feel that she is one of them; an ordinary dumb person who shares the intolerances and bigotries handed down by generations of ignorant people. They like the fact that she chooses to turn-down federal stimulus money even though it would benefit many people in Alaska (The Alaskan Legislature rebuffed the governor's rejection of $400 million in federal stimulus funds and, instead, stated that it will accept all of the money).
I suspect that there are also people out there who approve of the kind of statements made by Wayne Ross. They may come out of the woodwork for Republican events, but they are not really Republicans. They like it when somebody erects a Ku Klux Klan statue. They like it when the governor of Texas threatens to secede from the Union. They support the militias and other far-right extremists. I don’t think Sarah Palin is one of them, but her casual indifference to their kind of morally reprehensible rhetoric makes all thought of her accession to the presidency worrisome.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Republicans' Pathetic Tea Parties
"At any rate I'll never go there again!' said Alice as she picked her way through the wood. `It's the stupidest tea-party I ever was at in all my life!'" Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Today, April 15, Republican groups all over the country will be gathering in what they call “Tea Parties” to express opposition to the Obama Administration and to its liberal programs. My question is: will there be room at the table for Alice?
We should not forget that the Republicans who are organizing these Tea Parties represent a small minority of the electorate. President Obama and the Democrats won a major victory against these conservatives last November, and polls show that the President currently has overwhelming support among the people. So who are these sore losers who are so unhappy at having a liberal, bi-racial, Democratic president? They are Republicans, and their little Tea Parties are not spontaneous protests. They were planned and organized months ago.
The sick thing about these little get-togethers is that they may attract other truly disaffected, disgruntled, and marginal people in our society, including the militia types, the tax resistors, and the laid-off workers who are thinking about taking their guns and shooting some people. The reason the Republicans organized these “Tea Parties” was to do more than just memorialize Lewis Carroll. They wanted to show a revolutionary spirit akin to the spirit of the Sons of Liberty who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.
You can get a good idea of the political underpinnings of the tea parties by the people who are promoting them and who plan to attend. Fox News anchors Neil Cavuto (the Dormouse?) and Sean Hannity (the March Hare?) have signed-on with tea parties in Sacramento and Atlanta, and Newt Gingrich (definitely the Mad Hatter) plans to attend a tea party in New York. House Republican Gasbag John Boehner urged Republican congressmen to get involved in the movement. Local conservative Republican congressman Jim Jordan says he plans to attend the Tea Party in Dayton.
What do these protesters want? They will be protesting bailouts for the banks and auto companies, stimulus for the economy, the President’s budget, and liberal spending programs. The question is, do they want to bring back the policies of the Bush Administration? Are they protesting taxes? President Obama has lowered the taxes of everybody making less than $250,000 per year; that's 95% of the American people. Do they want more tax cuts for wealthy people, continued inaction on global warming, continued despoilment of our environment by big corporate polluters, continued deregulation of the securities and banking industries, exorbitant health care costs with 47 million uninsured, privatization of Social Security and Medicare, more unemployment, more foreclosures, and more economic collapse? Is that what they want?
Last November, after a long campaign in which an electrifying Democratic candidate called for fundamental change, and conservative Republicans pressed for tax breaks for the rich, continuance of the Iraqi War, and stagnation in the face of the worst economic recession since the 1930s, the nation chose the Democrat. Now those Republicans who were defeated are taking to the streets, pressing their sorry programs despite the terrible failure of those programs for the past eight years. Last November they had their chance to continue their lousy management of our country, but the people said NO!
It will not be hard to attract people to these little Tea Parties. Over 50 million people voted for John McCain last November, and although millions of them have switched their support to President Obama, I’m sure that there are still a few of them left who support Republicans’ sour grapes and obstructionism. But the tea partiers are a pathetic group of Mad Hatters, Dormice, and March Hares, trying insanely to reverse history. No matter how noisy, passionate, or fervent these conservatives are, their little Tea Parties will not bring back the days of Bush in Wonderland.
Today, April 15, Republican groups all over the country will be gathering in what they call “Tea Parties” to express opposition to the Obama Administration and to its liberal programs. My question is: will there be room at the table for Alice?
We should not forget that the Republicans who are organizing these Tea Parties represent a small minority of the electorate. President Obama and the Democrats won a major victory against these conservatives last November, and polls show that the President currently has overwhelming support among the people. So who are these sore losers who are so unhappy at having a liberal, bi-racial, Democratic president? They are Republicans, and their little Tea Parties are not spontaneous protests. They were planned and organized months ago.
The sick thing about these little get-togethers is that they may attract other truly disaffected, disgruntled, and marginal people in our society, including the militia types, the tax resistors, and the laid-off workers who are thinking about taking their guns and shooting some people. The reason the Republicans organized these “Tea Parties” was to do more than just memorialize Lewis Carroll. They wanted to show a revolutionary spirit akin to the spirit of the Sons of Liberty who dumped British tea into Boston Harbor in 1773.
You can get a good idea of the political underpinnings of the tea parties by the people who are promoting them and who plan to attend. Fox News anchors Neil Cavuto (the Dormouse?) and Sean Hannity (the March Hare?) have signed-on with tea parties in Sacramento and Atlanta, and Newt Gingrich (definitely the Mad Hatter) plans to attend a tea party in New York. House Republican Gasbag John Boehner urged Republican congressmen to get involved in the movement. Local conservative Republican congressman Jim Jordan says he plans to attend the Tea Party in Dayton.
What do these protesters want? They will be protesting bailouts for the banks and auto companies, stimulus for the economy, the President’s budget, and liberal spending programs. The question is, do they want to bring back the policies of the Bush Administration? Are they protesting taxes? President Obama has lowered the taxes of everybody making less than $250,000 per year; that's 95% of the American people. Do they want more tax cuts for wealthy people, continued inaction on global warming, continued despoilment of our environment by big corporate polluters, continued deregulation of the securities and banking industries, exorbitant health care costs with 47 million uninsured, privatization of Social Security and Medicare, more unemployment, more foreclosures, and more economic collapse? Is that what they want?
Last November, after a long campaign in which an electrifying Democratic candidate called for fundamental change, and conservative Republicans pressed for tax breaks for the rich, continuance of the Iraqi War, and stagnation in the face of the worst economic recession since the 1930s, the nation chose the Democrat. Now those Republicans who were defeated are taking to the streets, pressing their sorry programs despite the terrible failure of those programs for the past eight years. Last November they had their chance to continue their lousy management of our country, but the people said NO!
It will not be hard to attract people to these little Tea Parties. Over 50 million people voted for John McCain last November, and although millions of them have switched their support to President Obama, I’m sure that there are still a few of them left who support Republicans’ sour grapes and obstructionism. But the tea partiers are a pathetic group of Mad Hatters, Dormice, and March Hares, trying insanely to reverse history. No matter how noisy, passionate, or fervent these conservatives are, their little Tea Parties will not bring back the days of Bush in Wonderland.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
How is President Obama Doing?
Somehow, that minority of conservatives represented by talk-radio rattlebrains and Fox News rattlesnakes has been able to convince many that the nation is becoming disenchanted with President Obama. The opposite is quite true. President Obama is riding a powerful wave of popularity throughout the nation and around the world. His economic program is supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans.
Although President Obama beat McCain in the election by only 52% to 46%, recent polls have shown the President with a national approval rating of 66%(ABC/Washington Post Poll, March 30, 2009, and April 1-5 New York Times/CBS News poll). According to a recent Gallup poll, the President’s stimulus plan drew a 67% approval rating. The ABC/WP poll found that 64 % of Americans have confidence that President Obama's economic policies will improve the sagging economy. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was able to get a similar confidence vote of only 52%.
The poll figures for President Obama should be compared with the most recent polls for George W. Bush. The ABC/WP poll in January of this year found that Bush had an approval rating of only 33% with a disapproval rating of 66%. The always loveable Dick Cheney amassed a 30% approval rating during the same period.
In case you think that President Obama’s high approval ratings are simply a reflection of the honeymoon granted by voters to every newly-elected president, compare Obama’s 66% approval to George W. Bush’s 58% rating at the same time in March/April 2001. While every president gets some kind of a honeymoon, President Obama is getting a celebration!
Another indicia of the popularity of the Obama Administration is a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll that showed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a 71% approval rating. Of the people surveyed, 75% approved of President Obama's Cabinet picks.
The approval ratings of Congress under the Democrats have gone up over 20 points since President Obama took office. Democrats in Congress now have a 48% approval rating while Republicans earn an impressive 31%. Although Congress never seems to get much respect, the ratings for Republicans John Boehner (28%) and Mitch McConnell (29%) are especially low. Perhaps they would improve if they could come up with something better than a spending freeze.
There is a small cadre of devoted right-wingers who continued to support Bush and his clique even after the Iraq war proved a horrific mistake, even after the terrible mistakes of Katrina, Abu Graib, and global warming, and even after the economy tanked. People used to talk about a “Yellow Dog Democrat” as someone who would vote for a yellow dog rather than for a Republican. Well, that tight-knit group of die-hard, right-wing Republicans would fit that description. They are the core of those 30% approval ratings that Bush got even though he will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. They would vote even for Sarah Palin!
The thing that is exciting is that many people who voted for McCain now support President Obama. The President has gone from 52% election victory in November,
2008, to 66% approval rating now. That obviously reflects the switching of support by many independent voters, but it also demonstrates that many moderate Republicans are getting behind the President.
One area where Obama has already achieved enormous benefits for America is in world affairs. He was internationally acclaimed for his leadership at the G-20 summit in London. He has been treated like a rock star in Canada and Europe, with huge turnouts of screaming, excited fans. European leaders and citizens see him as a welcome change from the intransigence and short-sightedness of the Bush Administration. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 67% of Americans believe that world leaders respect Obama, compared with just 24% who said this about Bush a year ago.
How is President Obama doing? Just fine.
Although President Obama beat McCain in the election by only 52% to 46%, recent polls have shown the President with a national approval rating of 66%(ABC/Washington Post Poll, March 30, 2009, and April 1-5 New York Times/CBS News poll). According to a recent Gallup poll, the President’s stimulus plan drew a 67% approval rating. The ABC/WP poll found that 64 % of Americans have confidence that President Obama's economic policies will improve the sagging economy. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was able to get a similar confidence vote of only 52%.
The poll figures for President Obama should be compared with the most recent polls for George W. Bush. The ABC/WP poll in January of this year found that Bush had an approval rating of only 33% with a disapproval rating of 66%. The always loveable Dick Cheney amassed a 30% approval rating during the same period.
In case you think that President Obama’s high approval ratings are simply a reflection of the honeymoon granted by voters to every newly-elected president, compare Obama’s 66% approval to George W. Bush’s 58% rating at the same time in March/April 2001. While every president gets some kind of a honeymoon, President Obama is getting a celebration!
Another indicia of the popularity of the Obama Administration is a recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll that showed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a 71% approval rating. Of the people surveyed, 75% approved of President Obama's Cabinet picks.
The approval ratings of Congress under the Democrats have gone up over 20 points since President Obama took office. Democrats in Congress now have a 48% approval rating while Republicans earn an impressive 31%. Although Congress never seems to get much respect, the ratings for Republicans John Boehner (28%) and Mitch McConnell (29%) are especially low. Perhaps they would improve if they could come up with something better than a spending freeze.
There is a small cadre of devoted right-wingers who continued to support Bush and his clique even after the Iraq war proved a horrific mistake, even after the terrible mistakes of Katrina, Abu Graib, and global warming, and even after the economy tanked. People used to talk about a “Yellow Dog Democrat” as someone who would vote for a yellow dog rather than for a Republican. Well, that tight-knit group of die-hard, right-wing Republicans would fit that description. They are the core of those 30% approval ratings that Bush got even though he will go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. They would vote even for Sarah Palin!
The thing that is exciting is that many people who voted for McCain now support President Obama. The President has gone from 52% election victory in November,
2008, to 66% approval rating now. That obviously reflects the switching of support by many independent voters, but it also demonstrates that many moderate Republicans are getting behind the President.
One area where Obama has already achieved enormous benefits for America is in world affairs. He was internationally acclaimed for his leadership at the G-20 summit in London. He has been treated like a rock star in Canada and Europe, with huge turnouts of screaming, excited fans. European leaders and citizens see him as a welcome change from the intransigence and short-sightedness of the Bush Administration. A 2009 Gallup Poll found that 67% of Americans believe that world leaders respect Obama, compared with just 24% who said this about Bush a year ago.
How is President Obama doing? Just fine.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The Meaning of Easter
It is doubtful that Christians who celebrate Easter take time to consider the background of that feast. They devoutly celebrate an ancient sacrificial custom thinking it all began with Jesus and the gospels. We should look more closely at the feast.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is a merciful, loving, and forgiving God, could be appeased only by this hideous and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised.
Long before Christianity, human sacrifice was an integral part of worship of the gods. Today many religions still use an altar, but the first altars were used to sacrifice human and animal victims. References in literature to the sacrifice of human individuals harks back to the days when this was a routine and deeply reverent practice. In the story of the Trojan War, Agamemnon tells his wife to prepare his daughter for her marriage. He then takes her to the shore and sacrifices her to the gods in order to obtain favorable winds for his trip to Troy. You can be sure that the story is not pure whimsy. Human sacrifice was well known in ancient Greece, as it was in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Canaan, and Israel. At the time of Jesus, human sacrifice was a recent memory.
It is clear that back in the early history of the Israelites, human sacrifice was customary. Consider the stories of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19, Japhthah and his daughter in Judges 11:30-31, King Ahaz and his son in 2 Chronicles 28:3, and King Manasseh and his son in 2 Chronicles 33:6. Later in their history, the Israelites turned away from human sacrifice and declared it an abomination.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly refers to the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for Mankind. For example, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World;” John 2:2, “He is propitiation for the sins of the world;” Matthew 20, “Á ransom for many;” Matthew 26:28, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” Hebrews 9:23-28, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” (See also Philippians 2:17, 4:18; Romans 12:1, 15:16; 1Peter 1:18-19, 2:5; Ephesians 1:7; and Titus 2:14).
The dogma that Jesus was crucified as a form of atonement for Man’s original sin did not become established as a doctrine of the very early Church until the fourth century AD. Saint Augustine (354-430), who laid down many of the Church doctrines, including the doctrine of atonement, said that man was doomed to Hell until Jesus redeemed him. He regarded Jesus’ sacrifice “Not as payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of his fair and lawful claims.”
Like many other aspects of Christianity, the idea of propitiating a god with a human sacrifice, and even having the god himself be the sacrificial victim, was not new when the Church dreamed-up this explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It was borrowed from old pagan myths. I have mentioned the human sacrifices carried out by early Israelites. The Canaanites sacrificed children to the god Molech, and the prophets inveighed against such sacrificing (See Samuel 17:17; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20, 20:26).
In Egypt, the priests performed human sacrifice when the Pharaoh died. The Pharaoh was believed to be a god. His family and servants were buried alive with him. Eventually the priests started substituting animals, dolls, and other forms of art for living victims. In ancient Mesopotamia archiologists have found the tombs of kings with entire households that were buried alive when the king was interred.
In India, it was the custom to perform human sacrifice in order to guarantee a good harvest and appease the gods. The victim was believed to be the god sacrificing himself, in the form of a man, to himself as a god. The ancient Khonds of India believed that their human sacrificial victim died for all mankind and became a god.
The ancient Greeks sacrificed a criminal at Rhodes after putting him in royal robes. They did this in memory of the sacrifice by Kronos of his “Only begotten Son.” Themistocles sacrificed Persian youths to Dionysus.
Needless to say, there are conflicting accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus in the different Gospels. I will spare you the little discrepancies. John puts Jesus’ death on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan. Matthew, Mark, and Luke put it on the 15th day of Nisan. All of them say it took place on Friday, but historians, looking at calendars from that period, cannot find any Friday that fell on the 14th or the 15th of Nisan. There is some question about the hour at which Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says that it was the third hour. John 19:14 says Jesus was not taken away to be crucified until the 6th hour.
According to Matthew, before his crucifixion Jesus had said, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, see also Mark 8:31). The Gospels then go on to say that Jesus died on Friday night, and rose from the dead on Sunday morning. No matter how you stretch it, that is one day and two nights.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel when the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand...and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
While it is possible that a man named Jesus (Yeshua) actually lived, it is certain that he was not God, did not perform real miracles, and did not arise from the dead. Easter is a nice time of year, but it would actually be more reverent toward nature to celebrate the day as the return of warm weather and spring foliage rather than to perpetuate the myth of the resurrection of a Jewish preacher 2000 years ago.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is a merciful, loving, and forgiving God, could be appeased only by this hideous and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised.
Long before Christianity, human sacrifice was an integral part of worship of the gods. Today many religions still use an altar, but the first altars were used to sacrifice human and animal victims. References in literature to the sacrifice of human individuals harks back to the days when this was a routine and deeply reverent practice. In the story of the Trojan War, Agamemnon tells his wife to prepare his daughter for her marriage. He then takes her to the shore and sacrifices her to the gods in order to obtain favorable winds for his trip to Troy. You can be sure that the story is not pure whimsy. Human sacrifice was well known in ancient Greece, as it was in Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, Canaan, and Israel. At the time of Jesus, human sacrifice was a recent memory.
It is clear that back in the early history of the Israelites, human sacrifice was customary. Consider the stories of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19, Japhthah and his daughter in Judges 11:30-31, King Ahaz and his son in 2 Chronicles 28:3, and King Manasseh and his son in 2 Chronicles 33:6. Later in their history, the Israelites turned away from human sacrifice and declared it an abomination.
Nevertheless, the New Testament repeatedly refers to the idea that Jesus was a sacrifice for Mankind. For example, John 1:29, “Behold the Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the World;” John 2:2, “He is propitiation for the sins of the world;” Matthew 20, “Á ransom for many;” Matthew 26:28, “This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins;” Hebrews 9:23-28, “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many;” (See also Philippians 2:17, 4:18; Romans 12:1, 15:16; 1Peter 1:18-19, 2:5; Ephesians 1:7; and Titus 2:14).
The dogma that Jesus was crucified as a form of atonement for Man’s original sin did not become established as a doctrine of the very early Church until the fourth century AD. Saint Augustine (354-430), who laid down many of the Church doctrines, including the doctrine of atonement, said that man was doomed to Hell until Jesus redeemed him. He regarded Jesus’ sacrifice “Not as payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of his fair and lawful claims.”
Like many other aspects of Christianity, the idea of propitiating a god with a human sacrifice, and even having the god himself be the sacrificial victim, was not new when the Church dreamed-up this explanation of Jesus’ crucifixion. It was borrowed from old pagan myths. I have mentioned the human sacrifices carried out by early Israelites. The Canaanites sacrificed children to the god Molech, and the prophets inveighed against such sacrificing (See Samuel 17:17; Jeremiah 7:31; Ezekiel 16:20, 20:26).
In Egypt, the priests performed human sacrifice when the Pharaoh died. The Pharaoh was believed to be a god. His family and servants were buried alive with him. Eventually the priests started substituting animals, dolls, and other forms of art for living victims. In ancient Mesopotamia archiologists have found the tombs of kings with entire households that were buried alive when the king was interred.
In India, it was the custom to perform human sacrifice in order to guarantee a good harvest and appease the gods. The victim was believed to be the god sacrificing himself, in the form of a man, to himself as a god. The ancient Khonds of India believed that their human sacrificial victim died for all mankind and became a god.
The ancient Greeks sacrificed a criminal at Rhodes after putting him in royal robes. They did this in memory of the sacrifice by Kronos of his “Only begotten Son.” Themistocles sacrificed Persian youths to Dionysus.
Needless to say, there are conflicting accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus in the different Gospels. I will spare you the little discrepancies. John puts Jesus’ death on the 14th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan. Matthew, Mark, and Luke put it on the 15th day of Nisan. All of them say it took place on Friday, but historians, looking at calendars from that period, cannot find any Friday that fell on the 14th or the 15th of Nisan. There is some question about the hour at which Jesus was crucified. Mark 15:25 says that it was the third hour. John 19:14 says Jesus was not taken away to be crucified until the 6th hour.
According to Matthew, before his crucifixion Jesus had said, “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40, see also Mark 8:31). The Gospels then go on to say that Jesus died on Friday night, and rose from the dead on Sunday morning. No matter how you stretch it, that is one day and two nights.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
The accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel when the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand...and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
While it is possible that a man named Jesus (Yeshua) actually lived, it is certain that he was not God, did not perform real miracles, and did not arise from the dead. Easter is a nice time of year, but it would actually be more reverent toward nature to celebrate the day as the return of warm weather and spring foliage rather than to perpetuate the myth of the resurrection of a Jewish preacher 2000 years ago.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Lord Had Mercy
A gunman walked into a nursing home in North Carolina and began shooting the residents and employees. Eight people were shot dead and three others were wounded. One man, whose legless wife was a resident in the home, reported that the gunman had held a gun to her head but hadn’t shot her. The man didn’t know why his wife was spared, but said: “The Lord had mercy.” The Lord had mercy?
I suppose that I should have smiled at the simplicity of this man’s beliefs. He probably thinks that the Lord God stepped in, and, for some reason, saved the life of his wife. It is the kind of thing that is said by people all the time. They believe that God does act selectively to help some people while allowing others to suffer and die. They do not know why God acts in this way, but accept it as part of the mystery of God.
Perhaps I should not be upset at such thinking, but I am profoundly upset and angered by such raw stupidity. The millions of people who think this way are not willing to use their brains to consider the meaning of what they are saying. It is as if they have decided that it is perfectly appropriate to abandon rational thinking. It is okay to think that a loving and omnipotent God, who does step-in and do things to help people, would allow eight people and their families to suffer unimaginable horror and grief, while deliberately saving one or two others.
One hears of this kind of idiocy all the time. I have heard it from people who have just experienced a devastating tornado that wiped-out the homes of hundreds of people and killed many. They will report that although the tornado killed people, destroyed half of the homes in the town, and leveled all of the local churches, it left a statue of the Blessed Virgin still standing and unharmed. Surely this was the work of God! If I could, I would shout at these people at the top of my lungs: “You morons, you nitwits! God just destroyed your town and killed many people! And you say he spared some dumb statute?”
Most people do not stop to think of the obvious fact that if their God really existed, he would have to be a homicidal maniac. Aside from the fact that he stands by while millions of people suffer horribly from all kinds of diseases and injuries, he kills everybody! We must attribute all death to God. According to their beliefs, God made us and created everything in the universe. They believe that God designed us, so they must, of necessity, believe that God designed us to die. No only do we die, but most of us die in great pain and sorrow. We leave behind family and friends suffering from terrible grief. Is this the will of God? Is it his will that we not only die, but that we suffer when we die and that this causes mental suffering by all of the people close to us?
Are we supposed to believe that this homicidal manic, God, loves us? Are we supposed to believe that when prayed to, he steps in and sometimes, though rarely, spares a person’s life or cures someone's illness? Even though he designed us so that we would all die, he decided to bring Lazarus back to life. Is there anything but utter stupidity to that belief?
Some people believe in a place called Purgatory. They believe that God subjects humans who have sinned to a place similar to Hell where they have to stay for a long period of time before being admitted to Heaven. I have heard various descriptions of Purgatory, but the nuns used to tell us it was just like Hell with fire and pain. Now that I look back, I realize that such teaching was the most amazingly absurd thing the nuns ever taught us—and they taught a lot of incredibly stupid things. They would tell us how God loved us, but in the next breath they would describe how we were all sinners and that none of us would make it to Heaven without spending some time in Purgatory. The time periods in Purgatory were described as thousands, even millions of years. Indulgences by the Pope could reduce that time, and sometimes the period of time attached to indulgences would be set out. E.g. reading the Bible with proper devotion would save you x days in Purgatory.
Most Christians and many people of other faiths believe that there is a place called Hell where the worst sinners go upon death. Hell is described as eternal fire which burns the soul with great pain, but does not consume it. People who go to Hell suffer eternal pain. It is surely the most ridiculous teaching of the Christian faith. While it is true that there are evil people whom we would like to see in Hell, there is certainly nothing that we could do on Earth to merit this kind of eternal punishment. Moreover, according to the Catholic Church, anybody who dies with a “mortal sin” on his soul goes to Hell. Thus, it is not only Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, serial murderers, and child molester/murderers who would go to Hell. Billions of other people would go there for more common offenses. We were taught in school that many things were mortal sins, including masturbation, adultery, fornication, missing Sunday mass, sodomy, homosexuality, idolatry, atheism, blasphemy, lying, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, incest, theft, lust, envy, doubt of one’s faith, heresy, despair, and many others. I despair at the monumental ignorance reflected in such idiocy.
Would an infinitely loving God create man in such a way as to make him subject to every temptation, weak to every vice, grasping for power and money? Bertrand Russell said: “If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes.” Baron D’Holbach questioned whether there was not gross injustice in the thought that God makes man the way he is, and then punishes him for being that way. “Farfetched and endless torments are the justice of a merciful and compassionate God, reserved for fragile beings, for transitory offenses, for false reasonings, for involuntary errors, for necessary passions, which depend on the temperament this God has given him.”
The language used by modern religions to describe God is meaningless. They describe God as “loving.” They even describe God as “Infinitely loving,” whatever that means. Televangelists assure us that God loves us. They say “Jesus loves you!” God’s love for mankind is supposedly found in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. But what do they mean by the word “love?” We know what the love a mother has for her child means. A loving mother would never allow her child to be tortured to death without trying to do something to stop it. A mother who stood by and did nothing to stop her child from being tortured to death would not be called “loving.” Yet the word “love” as applied to God apparently does not have the same meaning! When applied to God it means an omnipotent being who does not raise a finger to stop the torture and suffering of millions of children every year. It means a being who allows children to be born with horrible genetic diseases, to suffer starvation, to be abused by parents and others, to be afflicted by natural disasters such as tsunamis, and to grow up in a world full of poverty, disease, hunger, and war.
Religion has a language of its own. That language is totally different from the accepted language of the world. It ignores the logic of human language, and imposes its own set of values. Thus, in human life, a God who would have to be considered a homicidal maniac is called the essence of love. He is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. God is just and righteous.”
I submit that all we have is our human brains. All we are capable of knowing is what our rational powers tell us. Our rational powers tell us that the actions and inactions of this mythical being called God are the works of a homicidal maniac, not a loving savior. It is time the world woke-up to the fact that there is no God.
I suppose that I should have smiled at the simplicity of this man’s beliefs. He probably thinks that the Lord God stepped in, and, for some reason, saved the life of his wife. It is the kind of thing that is said by people all the time. They believe that God does act selectively to help some people while allowing others to suffer and die. They do not know why God acts in this way, but accept it as part of the mystery of God.
Perhaps I should not be upset at such thinking, but I am profoundly upset and angered by such raw stupidity. The millions of people who think this way are not willing to use their brains to consider the meaning of what they are saying. It is as if they have decided that it is perfectly appropriate to abandon rational thinking. It is okay to think that a loving and omnipotent God, who does step-in and do things to help people, would allow eight people and their families to suffer unimaginable horror and grief, while deliberately saving one or two others.
One hears of this kind of idiocy all the time. I have heard it from people who have just experienced a devastating tornado that wiped-out the homes of hundreds of people and killed many. They will report that although the tornado killed people, destroyed half of the homes in the town, and leveled all of the local churches, it left a statue of the Blessed Virgin still standing and unharmed. Surely this was the work of God! If I could, I would shout at these people at the top of my lungs: “You morons, you nitwits! God just destroyed your town and killed many people! And you say he spared some dumb statute?”
Most people do not stop to think of the obvious fact that if their God really existed, he would have to be a homicidal maniac. Aside from the fact that he stands by while millions of people suffer horribly from all kinds of diseases and injuries, he kills everybody! We must attribute all death to God. According to their beliefs, God made us and created everything in the universe. They believe that God designed us, so they must, of necessity, believe that God designed us to die. No only do we die, but most of us die in great pain and sorrow. We leave behind family and friends suffering from terrible grief. Is this the will of God? Is it his will that we not only die, but that we suffer when we die and that this causes mental suffering by all of the people close to us?
Are we supposed to believe that this homicidal manic, God, loves us? Are we supposed to believe that when prayed to, he steps in and sometimes, though rarely, spares a person’s life or cures someone's illness? Even though he designed us so that we would all die, he decided to bring Lazarus back to life. Is there anything but utter stupidity to that belief?
Some people believe in a place called Purgatory. They believe that God subjects humans who have sinned to a place similar to Hell where they have to stay for a long period of time before being admitted to Heaven. I have heard various descriptions of Purgatory, but the nuns used to tell us it was just like Hell with fire and pain. Now that I look back, I realize that such teaching was the most amazingly absurd thing the nuns ever taught us—and they taught a lot of incredibly stupid things. They would tell us how God loved us, but in the next breath they would describe how we were all sinners and that none of us would make it to Heaven without spending some time in Purgatory. The time periods in Purgatory were described as thousands, even millions of years. Indulgences by the Pope could reduce that time, and sometimes the period of time attached to indulgences would be set out. E.g. reading the Bible with proper devotion would save you x days in Purgatory.
Most Christians and many people of other faiths believe that there is a place called Hell where the worst sinners go upon death. Hell is described as eternal fire which burns the soul with great pain, but does not consume it. People who go to Hell suffer eternal pain. It is surely the most ridiculous teaching of the Christian faith. While it is true that there are evil people whom we would like to see in Hell, there is certainly nothing that we could do on Earth to merit this kind of eternal punishment. Moreover, according to the Catholic Church, anybody who dies with a “mortal sin” on his soul goes to Hell. Thus, it is not only Hitler, Himmler, Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, serial murderers, and child molester/murderers who would go to Hell. Billions of other people would go there for more common offenses. We were taught in school that many things were mortal sins, including masturbation, adultery, fornication, missing Sunday mass, sodomy, homosexuality, idolatry, atheism, blasphemy, lying, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, divorce, incest, theft, lust, envy, doubt of one’s faith, heresy, despair, and many others. I despair at the monumental ignorance reflected in such idiocy.
Would an infinitely loving God create man in such a way as to make him subject to every temptation, weak to every vice, grasping for power and money? Bertrand Russell said: “If I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes.” Baron D’Holbach questioned whether there was not gross injustice in the thought that God makes man the way he is, and then punishes him for being that way. “Farfetched and endless torments are the justice of a merciful and compassionate God, reserved for fragile beings, for transitory offenses, for false reasonings, for involuntary errors, for necessary passions, which depend on the temperament this God has given him.”
The language used by modern religions to describe God is meaningless. They describe God as “loving.” They even describe God as “Infinitely loving,” whatever that means. Televangelists assure us that God loves us. They say “Jesus loves you!” God’s love for mankind is supposedly found in the bloody sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. But what do they mean by the word “love?” We know what the love a mother has for her child means. A loving mother would never allow her child to be tortured to death without trying to do something to stop it. A mother who stood by and did nothing to stop her child from being tortured to death would not be called “loving.” Yet the word “love” as applied to God apparently does not have the same meaning! When applied to God it means an omnipotent being who does not raise a finger to stop the torture and suffering of millions of children every year. It means a being who allows children to be born with horrible genetic diseases, to suffer starvation, to be abused by parents and others, to be afflicted by natural disasters such as tsunamis, and to grow up in a world full of poverty, disease, hunger, and war.
Religion has a language of its own. That language is totally different from the accepted language of the world. It ignores the logic of human language, and imposes its own set of values. Thus, in human life, a God who would have to be considered a homicidal maniac is called the essence of love. He is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin. God is just and righteous.”
I submit that all we have is our human brains. All we are capable of knowing is what our rational powers tell us. Our rational powers tell us that the actions and inactions of this mythical being called God are the works of a homicidal maniac, not a loving savior. It is time the world woke-up to the fact that there is no God.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Filibusters and Republican Gridlock
Filibusters have always been a desperate last-ditch means of protecting the minority in the U.S. Senate from the power of the majority. Since the Democrats have taken-over the Senate, however, the filibuster by Republicans has changed into to a continuing program of obstruction. There no longer are all-night sessions and drawn-out speeches. Now, the Republicans simply notify the Democrats that they are filibustering legislation. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture and break a filibuster.
Until recently, the filibuster had rarely been used by the minority in the Senate. Although Southern senators occasionally resorted to the filibuster to block civil rights legislation, it was not until the Clinton Administration that it came into regular use. It was during the Clinton years that 32 filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session.
The filibuster has now become the chief weapon of the Republicans. Republicans in the Senate have filibustered 80 pieces of legislation in the current session of Congress. That is an all-time record, and the session isn't over yet. It appears that the Republicans intend to try and block any legislation dealing with healthcare reform, global warming, cap-and-trade, and a number of other spending issues. But the Democrats have a remedy. Because these are budgetary items, they can be included in the “Budget Reconciliation” process.
Budget Reconciliation in the Senate is intended to allow a budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. All that is needed for passage of a budget is a simple majority in both houses of Congress.
Republicans have become incandescent with anger about the prospect of Democrats using the budget reconciliation process to pass major spending bills. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) said: “In this post-partisan time of Barack Obama, we’re seeing a little Chicago politics. They steamroller those who disagree with them, then, I guess in Chicago, they coat them in cement and drop them in the river.” Sen. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), (who defended using the budget reconciliation procedure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling in 2005), said any use of budget reconciliation by President Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans. Other GOP senators have fulminated against budget reconciliation, including Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Hatch (R-UT). The Republicans have threatened that if the Democrats use the budget reconciliation process to pass spending bills, they will shut down the government.
I have accused Republican legislators of being hypocrites. That may offend some people, but examination of the record supports my charge. A good example is the condemnation of Democratic proposals to use the budget reconciliation process. Despite their howls against the Democrats, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass a number of major Bush agenda items (which were supported by all four aforementioned Senators and opposed by Democrats) including the 2001 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Budget reconciliation has been used by several other Republican presidents, including Reagan and Bush Sr., to get around Democratic opposition. In fact, Republicans — with Bond and Gregg leading the charge — were instrumental in pushing through key provisions of the Republican “Contract with America” using budget reconciliation.
If I were President Obama and Majority Leader Reid, I would push forward with budget reconciliation on the major spending bills, and let the obstructionist, idea-starved Republicans try to shut-down the government. The last time they tried that, the public practically lynched them. Moreover, Reid should not allow the Republicans to filibuster just by saying they planned to do so. I would make them appear in the Senate and force them, like their segregationist Southern forerunners, to speak round-the-clock until they are sick, sore, worn-out, and exhausted. That is how some of the filibusters of the past were broken.
Until recently, the filibuster had rarely been used by the minority in the Senate. Although Southern senators occasionally resorted to the filibuster to block civil rights legislation, it was not until the Clinton Administration that it came into regular use. It was during the Clinton years that 32 filibusters were employed to kill a variety of presidential initiatives. Between 1999 and 2007, the number of Senate filibusters varied between 20 and 37 per session.
The filibuster has now become the chief weapon of the Republicans. Republicans in the Senate have filibustered 80 pieces of legislation in the current session of Congress. That is an all-time record, and the session isn't over yet. It appears that the Republicans intend to try and block any legislation dealing with healthcare reform, global warming, cap-and-trade, and a number of other spending issues. But the Democrats have a remedy. Because these are budgetary items, they can be included in the “Budget Reconciliation” process.
Budget Reconciliation in the Senate is intended to allow a budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. All that is needed for passage of a budget is a simple majority in both houses of Congress.
Republicans have become incandescent with anger about the prospect of Democrats using the budget reconciliation process to pass major spending bills. Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) said: “In this post-partisan time of Barack Obama, we’re seeing a little Chicago politics. They steamroller those who disagree with them, then, I guess in Chicago, they coat them in cement and drop them in the river.” Sen. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), (who defended using the budget reconciliation procedure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling in 2005), said any use of budget reconciliation by President Obama would be “regarded as an act of violence” against Republicans. Other GOP senators have fulminated against budget reconciliation, including Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Hatch (R-UT). The Republicans have threatened that if the Democrats use the budget reconciliation process to pass spending bills, they will shut down the government.
I have accused Republican legislators of being hypocrites. That may offend some people, but examination of the record supports my charge. A good example is the condemnation of Democratic proposals to use the budget reconciliation process. Despite their howls against the Democrats, Republicans employed the same procedure to pass a number of major Bush agenda items (which were supported by all four aforementioned Senators and opposed by Democrats) including the 2001 Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the 2003 Bush tax cuts, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, and The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
Budget reconciliation has been used by several other Republican presidents, including Reagan and Bush Sr., to get around Democratic opposition. In fact, Republicans — with Bond and Gregg leading the charge — were instrumental in pushing through key provisions of the Republican “Contract with America” using budget reconciliation.
If I were President Obama and Majority Leader Reid, I would push forward with budget reconciliation on the major spending bills, and let the obstructionist, idea-starved Republicans try to shut-down the government. The last time they tried that, the public practically lynched them. Moreover, Reid should not allow the Republicans to filibuster just by saying they planned to do so. I would make them appear in the Senate and force them, like their segregationist Southern forerunners, to speak round-the-clock until they are sick, sore, worn-out, and exhausted. That is how some of the filibusters of the past were broken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
