wallis insinuates Tea Party is racist

How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?

5. Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism — overt, implied, or even subtle — is not a Christian virtue.

So, all you white people, if you want to get into politics in a big way, make sure your movement meets all the racial quotas. You aren't allowed to think for yourself, or have your own opinions, unless enough minorities also share them.

So sayeth Jim Wallis, and woe betide the white person who dare go against him.

sojo: politics of identity oppression

Remember last weeks post about a Sojo writer claiming Arizona is against "ethnic studies"? Here's a reminder of what that law would ban, from the Huffpo.

Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

Another Sojo writer now joins in.

Pedagogy of the Oppressor: Arizona’s Ethnic Studies Ban

Here are some gems from that article.

It should come as no surprise that Arizona schools Superintendent Tom Horne supported a recent bill by Gov. Brewer to ban ethnic studies classes in the public schools. Horne worries that these “ethnic studies” classes teach students that they are oppressed. In a recent CNN interview, Horne said, “We should be teaching these kids that this is the land of opportunity. If they work hard, then they can achieve their dreams. And not teach them that they are oppressed.” Why should they not be taught that they are oppressed? Simple: Because they are! And he fears what an “awakened” group can do against the forces of oppression that keep many in the dark.

No, they are not oppressed. Not here. Here, they have the opportunity to leave behind their oppression, and actually find success. But this Sojo writer would rather have them think they are still oppressed, because if they didn't think that, if they though they could succeed, they would likely not vote for the people who want to make them dependent on government support.

Horne, in an attempt to elicit contempt for ethnic studies, remarks that their textbook, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed, was written by Paulo Freire, “a well-known Brazilian communist.” He attacks the author but does not address his ideas. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Friere distinguishes between banking and transformative education. The latter is education that inspires students to forge a more humane social order by overcoming oppression and other obstacles to the humanization of all peoples. Banking education, on the other hand, simply instills in students the tools and knowledge used to perpetuate the dehumanization and oppression of others.

No surprise that a Sojo writer would defend a Brazilian communist, or a communist of any ethnic ilk for that matter. But his characterization of Friere's kins of education, probably accurate, are still rather unhelpful. "Education that inspires students to forge a more humane social order" sound rather like lib-speak for what they've being trying to do for years, which has basically made the US an education laughing-stock. By "banking education", then, I understand an education that actually teaches students something important, like how to do work that allows them to feed themselves and their families, pay their bills, and have some pleasures like satellite TV and a nice home library.

Horne evidently prefers banking education. Students must learn to work hard, which means succeeding while leaving others behind.

This is so laughable as to be almost un-funny. Yeah, kids, don't work hard, your Uncle Sam will give you all you need, so long as you be good little liberal agitators.

Pathetic. Sojo should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this nonsense.

olbermann: Palin an idiot-woman

Echo-Chamber Olbermann Calls 'Idiot-Woman' Palin Coward For Refusing To Come On MSNBC

Another example of "hateful and even violent rhetoric" from someone on the left.

Here's how Olbermann teased his attack at the top of the show . . .

KEITH OLBERMANN: Idiot-woman speaks. In front of a big flag, sponsored by a sump-pump company, quote: "somebody told me, you know your [sic] going into enemy territory. I said, it's Chicago, it's not MSNBC." Yah, like you had the courage to come to MSNBC.

And.

OLBERMANN: She continued, "I'm glad to be here on the president's home turf. Somebody told me 'you know, you're going into enemy territory. I said it's Chicago, it's not MSNBC.' That woman is an idiot. And the event at which that idiot spoke was sponsored by an Illinois firm that specializes in battery-operated back-up sump pumps. Not just a sump-pump political event: it was a back-up sump-pump political event. Moreover, to put it plainly, and this is a matter of record, that woman does not have the courage, personal or political, to appear on MSNBC. Not without and army with her, and I mean that literally. the half-governor of Alaska now celebrating two years without holding an actual news conference or having the guts to appear on a network like this one. But the toast of America's back-up sump pump political circuit. Today's Worst Person in the World.

A lot of 'idiot's in that statement, and unearned ones, too. And why he's bashing on back-up sump pumps, I've no idea.

Sad. I use to like him when he was on SportCenter. Now, he's just lost it.

knowing him by his hero

Who was Saul Alinsky?

Saul Alinsky’s radicalism was expressed in his 1971 book, “Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals.” In that book, Alinsky said, “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer.” Alinsky never saw himself as the devil, but as some radical angel who could bedevil “the Establishment” and force it to change to assuage pressures from community organizations.

Two points to make here...

First, anytime Lucifer is your hero, you're serioulsy messed-up. And anyone who follows you is the same, no matter how 'christian' they want us to think they are.

Second, it's pretty plain that Alinsky wasn't really anti-establishment. Since he thought that Lucifer was so effective because he had his own kingdom, we can assume that the end of Alinsky's shenanigans was similar. He, and those like him, are only anti-establishment when they don't like the establishment. When they are the establishment, well, everyone better toe the line.

Arizona can't do anything right

Apparently, if you don't celebrate certain holidays, or think that US school students should be most concerned about US history, or want teachers that don't have accents so bad that students can't understand them, Sojo thinks your racist.

It wasn’t that long ago that the state of Arizona did not recognize, in fact went out of its way to criticize, the celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. They drew the ire of the African-American community, the prophetic hip hop group Public Enemy, and even the NFL who once relocated the Super Bowl because of the controversy. What were the reasons people gave not to celebrate what is now a nationally recognized federal holiday? Some questioned whether he was worthy of such an honor even though he is recognized by many as the greatest American citizen of the twentieth century. Others continued to insinuate he was an undercover communist, and was, therefore, ineligible for such an honor. Still others critiqued his stance on the Vietnam War and what that meant about his patriotism. But underneath all of that rhetoric, which is all highly questionable by any student of King’s life, laid the fact that America was about to honor a Black man with a national holiday, and Arizona was at the forefront of this backlash.

Yeah, how dare people take a critical look at the life of a man, even one who did good things. After all, the US has had many good people who don't have national or state holidays. And if you do, well, your actually a racist.

A typical tired liberal tirade.

However, it is important to point out that Arizona (and Gov. Jan Brewer) has recently banned ethnic studies classes,

The Sojo writer provides a link here, and I followed that link to a Huffpo article. This is what it says.

Under the ban, sent to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer by the state legislature Thursday, schools will lose state funding if they offer any courses that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."

So, this is bad? The Sojo writer is up in arms because schools can't have those kinds of classes? That's considered "banned ethnic studies classes"?

And, finally, this.

Department of Education has imposed new regulations about the amount of an accent teachers can have and which students they can teach.

And, again, mentioned in the Huffpo article.

Meanwhile, in a move that was more covert until the Wall Street Journal uncovered it, the Arizona Department of Education has told schools that teachers with "heavy" or "ungrammatical" accents are no longer allowed to teach English classes.

And, from the Wall Street Journal article.

State education officials say the move is intended to ensure that students with limited English have teachers who speak the language flawlessly. But some school principals and administrators say the department is imposing arbitrary fluency standards that could undermine students by thinning the ranks of experienced educators.

"The teacher obviously must be fluent in every aspect of the English language," said Adela Santa Cruz, director of the Arizona education-department office charged with enforcing standards in classes for students with limited English.

About 150,000 of Arizona's 1.2 million public-school students are classified as English Language Learners. Of the state's 247 school districts, about 20 have high concentrations of such students, the largest number of which are in the younger grades.

Nearly half the teachers at Creighton, a K-8 school in a Hispanic neighborhood of Phoenix, are native Spanish speakers. State auditors have reported to the district that some teachers pronounce words such as violet as "biolet," think as "tink" and swallow the ending sounds of words, as they sometimes do in Spanish.

Yeah, how evil, that Arizona is requiring that it's English-learning students actually be taught by teachers who can speak English well.

Seriously, all of this simply liberal straw-grasping.

And the most laughable line of all...

This is not an exercise in Arizona bashing,...

When you can't even lie convincingly, people won't believe you.

things that matter

Side Effects: IRS Could Eat Your Refund

Obamacare requires all individuals to carry health insurance for themselves and their families. Those who don’t will have to pay a penalty. And the IRS is the agency charged with making sure the uninsured pony up.

Steven T. Miller, IRS Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement, explained that, though “The Internal Revenue Service won’t audit you to make sure you have purchased health insurance under provisions of the new health-care law…it may withhold your tax refund if you can’t demonstrate that you are insured.”

First, there is the unconstitutionality of the government requiring people to buy anything, even if some think it is 'for their own good'. Now, making the IRS the ones who make sure you have it? Yeah, that's not abuses of power waiting to happen.

Side Effects: It’s Official- Higher Health Care Costs

Medicare Savings (if they occur) Mean Bad News for Seniors. Medicare hospital payments will grow at a slower rate than the cost of providing services, such that “… providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention [think doc fix], might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)” (p.10). As far as changes for Medicare Advantage enrollees, CMS reports that “new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages … in 2017 … enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent …” (p.11).

•Bending the Spending Curve UP? CMS reports that under new law, overall national health expenditures will increase by $311 billion. This is the net result of increases in coverage and decreased spending from reductions to Medicare and due to the excise tax on Cadillac insurance plans. Expect this figure to rise if Congress indefinitely postpones unsustainable Medicare cuts (again, think doc fix) and yields to political pressure to ax the Cadillac tax, both of which will likely happen. Comparative Effectiveness may have a small effect on reducing the growth of health care costs, but, writes CMS, “We show a negligible financial impact over the next 10 years for the other provisions intended to help control future health care cost growth” (p.13).

And more, if you wish to inquire further.

side effects

it doesn't matter...

On Healthcare Reform (Spoiler Alert: The Ayes Have It)

Since theOoze has been pimping McLaren's views, and he's obviously a political animal now, what theOoze writes has some political play.

And since this article of there is obviously political, here we go...

The strongest Republican argument I’ve heard is that health care reform was needed, but should have been done in the private sector rather than by the national government. And you know what? I think they may be right. But it’s too late. Because the time to reform health care privately, either by legislation or by appealing to the consciences of insurance CEO’s was twenty years ago. The bottom line is, if health care reform was going to come from a self-policed private sector, it would have been done by now.

Oh, dear, so, because private sector didn't do things fast enough for her, we're stuck with a health care catastrophe.

The first president to advocate a national health insurance plan was Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican, by the way), almost 100 years ago. There have been 18 presidents since then, 10 of whom were Republicans. From 2000-2006, when insurance premiums skyrocketed 87 per cent, while inflation increased 18 per cent and wages increased 20 per cent, there was a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress.

It was a bad idea when all those others were president, and it's a bad idea now.

Here’s what I have to say to people who are still decrying the passage of the reform bill: You had your chance to reform it, and you didn’t. Tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, and 47,000 of them die each year for lack of insurance.

So the bill may not be perfect. It may go too far, or not far enough. It may have been voted in with unusual (though not unconstitutional) means. But it is fiscally responsible, reducing the federal deficit by $138 billion over the next 10 years. And even more importantly, it is sure to save lives.

It may even save yours.

Say hello to the voice of despair, folks (Hi, voice of despair).

You see, it's not about making wise decisions and passing laws that are good, it's about making ANY decision and passing laws no matter how bad, how unconstitutional, it is, and no matter how much the citizens don't want the law. It's about trying to spin a government takeover of health into somehow "reducing the federal deficit". It's about telling Granny to take a pill and die into "it is sure to save lives".

It's about feeling good about yourself, because, hey, at least you 'did something'. Even if it made matters much worse.

sojo: students drawing mohammed

Interestingly, Sojo has something relevant to the last post about Marcuse, I think.

Free Speech vs. Fundamentalist Islam?

This seems to me largely a trick of language. When something gets called a “Sacred Cow”, it must be attacked. When the mantle of free speech is raised, it must be defended. And when Muslims are in the picture, all 1.5 billion of us somehow get linked to the Dragon Threatening Civilization rather than being viewed as your neighbors just trying to go about our business.

Since the article is a long one, I won't post everything in it, but the link is above. The students drew stick figures in chalke and labelled them "Mohammed", in response to Comedy Central receiving threats concerning Mohammed being depicted in a South Park episode.

Frankly, not being a fan of CC or South Park, I have a hard time mustering much sympathy for either. Yet simply because some speech is offensive doesn't mean it must be met with threats (unless your Marcuse).

Yet the Sojo writer, addressing more I think the students than the cable channel, uses some interesting tactics. First, he puts words in their mouths.

It is true that fringe Muslim groups are quick and public with their ugly threats. Mainstream Muslims spend an awful lot of time saying we have nothing to do with those groups. Part of what’s disturbing about the Draw Muhammad campaign is its implicit attempt to draw a direct line between mainstream Muslims and violent fringe groups. It’s the “We have to stand up against you people” message.

You people? That line ought to make us a little uncomfortable.

But he only uses one quote from a group involved, at the first of the article.

One of the members of the Atheists, Agnostics and Freethinkers (AAF) group leading the event at the University of Illinois wrote a letter explaining his actions: “No one’s sacred cow unwrites basic human rights. You can cater to the whims of fundamentalists, or you can cater to fundamental rights, but you can’t do both.”

Now, reading that, I see a distinct lack of the phrase "you people" in it. Granting, I hardly expect athiests, agnostics, and freethinkers to hold the highest of opinions of religious people of any ilk, but one should be wary of creating hatred out of whole cloth, without at least some support. And this writer doesn't do that. He assumes as "you people" attitude, which at least explicitly isn't there.

Come on folks, this isn’t about Free Speech vs. Fundamentalist Islam.

This is about Actions that Build an Inclusive Society vs. Actions that Marginalize a Minority Community.

Not about free speech? Perhaps he should tell Comedy Central that? Or maybe Theo von Gogh, who was referenced by those making the threats? He really was killed for daring to speak out against Islam. His freedom of speech was pretty well curtailed, and it made the threat to Comedy Central and South Park a bit more than just over-the-top rhetoric.

marcuse: silence the right

Excerpts from Herbert Marcuse's essay "Repressive Tolerance".

Within the framework of such a social structure, tolerance can be safely practiced and proclaimed. It is of two kinds: (i) the passive toleration of entrenched and established attitudes and ideas even if their damaging effect on man and nature is evident, and (2) the active, official tolerance granted to the Right as well as to the Left, to movements of aggression as well as to movements of peace, to the party of hate as well as to that of humanity

I guess it's pretty plain that he considered the right to be the "movements of aggression" and the "party of hate".

Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. (

And we see where he is going--some people's rights to speak and assemble should not be tolerated. How odd, that though this essay was written in the 1960s, he should say that "withdrawal of toleration" should be exercised against those who "oppose the extension of...medical care". We saw something like that happen not too long ago, and indeed is still happening.

The comparative evaluation in terms of the number of victims is the quantifying approach which reveals the man-made horror throughout history that made violence a necessity. In terms of historical function, there is a difference between revolutionary and reactionary violence, between violence practiced by the oppressed and by the oppressors. In terms of ethics, both forms of violence are inhuman and evil--but since when is history made in accordance with ethical standards? To start applying them at the point where the oppressed rebel against the oppressors, the have-nots against the haves is serving the cause of actual violence by weakening the protest against it.

Again, something we're seeing today, but in an even more telling way. The left almost can't have any sort of rally or gathering without it degenerating into violence--attacking law enforcement, attacking those who speak out against them. But those on the right, who gather in peaceful and responsible ways, are labelled the violent ones.

See, as well, how some supposedly life-affirming liberals of a religious bent came down in favor of the current US President during the presidential campaign, even though the candidate was not only pro-abortion, but also pro-infanticide. Perhaps this was not so much an affirmation of the pro-abortion position as it was turning a blind eye, yet that blind eye was turned upon the unborn victims, and they rejoiced and largely still do in this administration.

Here is a bit more Marcuse writes about that.

With respect to historical violence emanating from among ruling classes, no such relation to progress seems to obtain. The long series of dynastic and imperialist wars, the liquidation of Spartacus in Germany in 1919, Fascism and Nazism did not break but rather tightened and streamlined the continuum of suppression. I said emanating 'from among ruling classes': to be sure, there is hardly any organized violence from above that does not mobilize and activate mass support from below; the decisive question is, on behalf of and in the interest of which groups and institutions is such violence released? And the answer is not necessarily ex post: in the historical examples just mentioned, it could be and was anticipated whether the movement would serve the revamping of the old order or the emergence of the new.

This is one reason why I don't trust the peaceniks on the left. While some may genuinely be pacifists, I suspect most are not; rather, as they have shown in the past, they will use violence when they think it will serve their ends. Or, more likely, simply because they want to. One need only note that the former domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, is a current hero.

The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone 'in the maturity of his faculties' as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously.

We're getting closer to the point. Here, we are told that only those of certain opinions are considered qualified to run society. Since Marcuse was a Marxist, one need not made a difficult guess what kinds of opinions make one 'qualified'.

Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: ... it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.

And here, I think, we have the main point of the whole mess--the left should silence the right by any means necessary. Instead of having a free exchange of ideas with people deciding for themselves, instead of freedom of speech for all, freedoms should be taken away from the right.

Despite the lack of foul language in this essay, I consider it hate speech of the worst sort.

right wants successful terrorist attack?

And it was on CNN.

KURTZ: We can argue about Miranda rights, and we can argue about how Shahzad ended up on the no-fly list and yet he was able to get on a plane. You know, that's all legitimate. But you think some pundits on the right, you were starting to criticize before, are rooting for Obama to fail on terrorism?

JOHN ARAVOSIS, AMERICABLOG: Well, sure. I don't think there's any question...

KURTZ: That would suggest they want a successful terrorist attack.

I think I'll let their words speak for themselves. Such nonsense needs and deserves little or no comment.

malloy wishes death on Franklin Graham

Mike Malloy: Franklin Graham Should Blow His Own Brains Out

I assume that 'blowing his brains out' is a death-wish, no matter if it's with a gun or with drugs.

MALLOY: Somebody ought to lock this guy up and give him a bag of cocaine and just let him blow his own brains out. He really, I mean...it's common knowledge that Franklin Graham is a cokehead of the worst kind...

And Malloy even shows his ignorance regarding religions.

Before posting this, I should give a language alert. It's a word Malloy uses, so I'll not change it, but rather let it tell you all you need to know about him.

MALLOY: Now you're thinking, Franklin! Every once in a while when you've done too much coke, a thought will get through, a real thought! In the interview in USA Today, Franklin also renewed his criticism of Islam, saying Muslims do not worship the same God the father I worship; uh, yes they do; but oh, oh the father thing in there...I see, OK.

Well, actually Franklin, you coked-out freak -- uh, Jews and Christians and Muslims all worship the same god. That's why you people are out of your goddamn minds because you're always killing each other! He took a swipe at Hinduism, saying - now get this. Now tell me this guy is not drugged out of his mind. Tell me this is not someone whose brain has been burned into a cinder from too much coke. 'No elephant with 100 arms can do anything for me!'

My understanding of Franklin Graham's past is that he was in rebellion years ago, but has since repented and now serves God. So for Malloy to refer back to Graham's past, as if it were still true, is simply to show that he does not believe in forgiveness and regeneration from God.

And Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do not worship the same God. While some confusion may be excused in regards to Christianity and Judaism, the separation between them came about with Christ. Islam's Allah has only a superficial similarity to the God, while in most things is a truly radical departure from the God of the Old Testament.

And if he wants to say that atheism is somehow more peaceful than religion, than I would simply point out the peaceful atheists of the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba, and no doubt a few other places where their atheism was promoted through the peaceful means of imprisoning and killing religious people.

malloy's 'national holiday'

Not to be charry about getting things going, here's an example of what I meant from the first post.


Malloy: Beck and Limbaugh Want Oklahoma City Bombing Repeated 'Endlessly'

Today, I think Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh want today to be declared, uh, a national holiday. I suggest it be called Beck Memorial Day. This is the kind of day 15 years ago when Beck was still working, uh, in a bath house as a towel boy. This is the kind of day that, 15 years ago that Beck, when he woke up and heard about the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building he applauded. He clapped. He danced. He jumped around like a drop of water on a hot pancake griddle! He was just as happy as could be! This is what Beck and Limbaugh and the rest of these right wing freaks want to see happen again. And again. And again. Endlessly.

I mean, seriously, can you, the reader, think of anything more hateful? Or a more clear example of hateful rhetoric? To claim that someone "clapped" and "danced" when he heard about the Oklahoma City bombing, to say that Beck and Limbaugh want that to be a day and an event that should be celebrated, comes closer to deranged madness than anything worth hearing or reading. And to claim that those on the right want such a thing to happen again is nothing but a blatant untruth.

why?

The inspiration for this site can be pretty plainly expressed by the words of Walli's quoted under the title.

"...but the hateful and even violent rhetoric that has been employed in the past, and is now having a resurgence again, is dangerous and destructive and should be renounced and rejected by people of faith and good will across the political spectrum."

I happen to agree with him, to a certain extent.

Which is the reason for this new blog--to show examples of what I consider "hateful and even violent rhetoric", but from the past and from things said in more recent times.

Probably the most telling difference between Wallis and myself will be this--he considers the rhetoric of US conservatives to be the "hateful and even violent rhetoric" that we are to avoid, while I think that it is liberals like Wallis himself who most often engage in that kind of speech and writing. And I intend to show it here.

Don't know if this will be an enjoyable place. It is meant to inform, and I hope you who will read it will leave informed.