Jon Stewart: Smart-Ass or Modern-Day Prophet?

For well over six years now my wife and I have faithfully watched "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart". What we have seen take place during those years is nothing short of a metamorphosis from what many considered to be an above average stand-up comic with a gift for interviewing guests to an often irreverent but essential disseminator of information to an audience, the majority of whom neither had the intellectual prowess to understand what he was saying, or the sophistication to care what the ramifications of the program’s material content portended. But, whether the bulk of his audience got it or not, the rest of us not only got it, but applauded, for what might have been initially thought of in its early days as nothing more than a stand in and filler for "South Park" addicts and "Chappelle Show" devotees, has become, ironically enough, THE most topical and informative program on cable television today. Fake news has now trumped “real” news to the dismay of the established “real” news networks, and all I can say is WTF?

How did this admitted pot smoking, smart-ass, stand-up comic, whose crowning achievement was the B-movie flop "Death To Smoochy", rise to such heights? The fact that collectively CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, NBC and CBS can’t do in 24 hours what Stewart does in thirty minutes, should appall any and all who have even a minute interest in the day’s events. Honestly, would any network news program have dared done to Mad Money’s Jim Cramer what Stewart did in his now infamous March 12th interview? http://uk.video.yahoo.com/watch/4668112/12478589

I doubt it. And therein lies the problem. Jon Stewart has ascended to the lofty status of political hatchet man extraordinaire more as a result of an industry’s incompetence and indifference than on the merits of his talent. Not that he isn’t funny and salient, but the fact that he is one of the few courageous voices on television challenging politicians on both sides of the political aisle, as well as taking on the very industry tasked with reporting on their actions in the first place is a sign that something very serious is wrong with the mainstream media. Jon Stewart, for better or worse, has now become the guardian of journalistic integrity. Take out PBS, which does, on a whole, a very good job at reporting the news stories of the day, and the sad and painful truth is that among the rest of the media, you’d be hard-pressed to find enough qualified “journalists" doing the job they were hired to do to fill a small row boat.

Shameful would be a word in a half. How did this travesty happen? As Steve alluded to in one of his comments to my Tim Russert piece two weeks ago corporations now control much if not all of the media reporting that goes on in this country. That isn’t to suggest that parent companies restrict news directors from what they can or can’t report on, but it would be naïve to believe that corporate bottom lines don’t ultimately have the final say in which shows air and when, which stories get promoted, and how “tough” the actual reporting will be. Witness the interview that John King of CNN did with former Vice President Dick Chenney last March. King might just as well have phoned it in as it were. Not once during the entire interview did King challenge Chenney’s assertions. Can you imagine Jon Stewart laying down for that interview? Corporations care most about profits not truth-finding. News shows that show reporters digging in their heals and challenging guests on the truthfulness of their answers may win the respect of colleagues and academicians, but when the average guy in the street turns the channel for a softer, more palatable program, profits plunge. So the message is report, yes, but don’t dig too deep, lest ye lose corporate sponsors.

And you wonder why the Right has been touting the abolishment of Public Broadcasting for years. Were it not for National Public Radio and Television, I dare say most if not all of us would be getting our information from the BBC.

So, for now, we have Jon Stewart, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer, and maybe a handful of others standing in the way of total mediocrity. Edward R. Murrow must be spinning around in his grave over the condition of the industry he helped create in the 1950s. In deed in a speech he gave in 1958 to the RTNDA the warning he issued is both ominous and, I’m afraid to say, self-fulfilling. Below is an excerpt from that speech:

“Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

"For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done--and are still doing--to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

"I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is--an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.”

What we desperately need today is a latter day Edward R. Murrow, who calls it as he sees it, doesn’t back down, and who challenges the powers that be. In lieu of someone rising up to recapture the mantle that Murrow built in what currently passes for the mass media in this country, looks like we’ll have to settle for Jon Stewart.

Pro Life vs. Pro Choice: An interesting dialogue.


Below is a link to a discussion between Mike Huckabee and Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that I got from Steve. I agree with the comments made by Jim Wallis. Why can't there be more thoughtful discussions on this admittedly provocative subject?



http://blog.sojo.net/2009/06/24/jon-stewart-and-mike-huckabee-on-abortion/

Time for the Neo-cons To Take A Hike

The events in Iran over the last few days have stirred emotions in all of us. It would be impossible not to be moved by the violence take is taking place in cities like Tehran. Unquestionably the election results were fixed so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would win in a landslide; it is obvious that he has the backing of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as well as the Majlis – the Iranian equivalent of a legislative body. It is equally obvious to all with eyes that this is a test for the American government, and for once we have a president who is passing the test.

The last thing the United States needs to do is get involved in the internal affairs of another Middle Eastern country. Despite what conservatives and Republicans – it is getting more and more difficult to tell them apart these days isn’t it? – are saying, President Barack Obama has chosen wisely to not bite on the apple of intervention. He has condemned the violence without taking sides. He has chosen to let the Iranian people fight their own revolution, if that’s what in deed happens.

The truth is we have had a deplorable track record with respect to the Middle East. We badly overestimated our presence in Afghanistan, needlessly invaded Iraq, and inflamed the passions of countless millions of Muslims around the world against us, who see us as invaders and occupiers of their holy land.

What we need now is restraint and patience, not more of the same disasters that have been the stuff of countless failed neo-con game plans. When are we finally going to get it through our thick skulls that the United States is NOT welcomed in this part of the world; that we have earned our badly scarred reputation, and that by staying the hell out of a conflict and not inflicting our own brand of democracy, things do have a way of working out? If we want someone to blame for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East all we have to do is look in the mirror. It was our support of the Shaw of Iran that brought about the revolution of 1979. The whole 444 days episode that helped bring about the end of the Carter Administration in 1980 could have been avoided had we simply stayed out of Iranian affairs in the first place.

And now the people of Iran will decide which course of action to take. If we truly desire democracy than let’s do our part by not sticking our nose in places where it doesn’t belong. The religious authorities are paranoid about what the West will do and are looking for any excuse to blame us. Let’s not give them that excuse. For once let’s let our principles and values speak louder than our bombastic voices and our military might. The President’s wisdom is the correct path; for our sake let’s hope the rest of our leaders get it.

Alternative Politics: The Moderates are Coming! The Moderates are Coming!


For those of you who have been growing concerned that there seems to be only two political viewpoints being articulated in the nation - the extreme Left and the extreme Right - I found this article by David Brooks in The New York Times on March 2nd of this year. While I don't agree with all of Brooks' concerns or conclusions, and would definitely position myself to the left of his stances, I admire his intellect and his passion. I therefore thought the article deserved to be included in this blog. What we really need is an open and honest debate on the issues, free of the ideologues that too often poison our minds with narrow-minded and defeatist attitudes.


A Moderate Manifesto


By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 2, 2009

You wouldn’t know it some days, but there are moderates in this country — moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, just plain moderates. We sympathize with a lot of the things that President Obama is trying to do. We like his investments in education and energy innovation. We support health care reform that expands coverage while reducing costs.


But the Obama budget is more than just the sum of its parts. There is, entailed in it, a promiscuous unwillingness to set priorities and accept trade-offs. There is evidence of a party swept up in its own revolutionary fervor — caught up in the self-flattering belief that history has called upon it to solve all problems at once.


So programs are piled on top of each other and we wind up with a gargantuan $3.6 trillion budget. We end up with deficits that, when considered realistically, are $1 trillion a year and stretch as far as the eye can see. We end up with an agenda that is unexceptional in its parts but that, when taken as a whole, represents a social-engineering experiment that is entirely new.


The U.S. has never been a society riven by class resentment. Yet the Obama budget is predicated on a class divide. The president issued a read-my-lips pledge that no new burdens will fall on 95 percent of the American people. All the costs will be borne by the rich and all benefits redistributed downward.


The U.S. has always been a decentralized nation, skeptical of top-down planning. Yet, the current administration concentrates enormous power in Washington, while plan after plan emanates from a small group of understaffed experts.


The U.S. has always had vibrant neighborhood associations. But in its very first budget, the Obama administration raises the cost of charitable giving. It punishes civic activism and expands state intervention.


The U.S. has traditionally had a relatively limited central government. But federal spending as a share of G.D.P. is zooming from its modern norm of 20 percent to an unacknowledged level somewhere far beyond.


Those of us who consider ourselves moderates — moderate-conservative, in my case — are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice. As Clive Crook, an Obama admirer, wrote in The Financial Times, the Obama budget “contains no trace of compromise. It makes no gesture, however small, however costless to its larger agenda, of a bipartisan approach to the great questions it addresses. It is a liberal’s dream of a new New Deal.”


Moderates now find themselves betwixt and between. On the left, there is a president who appears to be, as Crook says, “a conviction politician, a bold progressive liberal.” On the right, there are the Rush Limbaugh brigades. The only thing more scary than Obama’s experiment is the thought that it might fail and the political power will swing over to a Republican Party that is currently unfit to wield it.


Those of us in the moderate tradition — the Hamiltonian tradition that believes in limited but energetic government — thus find ourselves facing a void. We moderates are going to have to assert ourselves. We’re going to have to take a centrist tendency that has been politically feckless and intellectually vapid and turn it into an influential force.


The first task will be to block the excesses of unchecked liberalism. In the past weeks, Democrats have legislated provisions to dilute welfare reform, restrict the inflow of skilled immigrants and gut a voucher program designed for poor students. It will be up to moderates to raise the alarms against these ideological outrages.


But beyond that, moderates will have to sketch out an alternative vision. This is a vision of a nation in which we’re all in it together — in which burdens are shared broadly, rather than simply inflicted upon a small minority. This is a vision of a nation that does not try to build prosperity on a foundation of debt. This is a vision that puts competitiveness and growth first, not redistribution first.


Moderates are going to have to try to tamp down the polarizing warfare that is sure to flow from Obama’s über-partisan budget. They will have to face fiscal realities honestly and not base revenue projections on rosy scenarios of a shallow recession and robust growth next year.


They will have to take the economic crisis seriously and not use it as a cue to focus on every other problem under the sun. They’re going to have to offer an agenda that inspires confidence by its steadiness rather than shaking confidence with its hyperactivity.


If they can do that, maybe they can lure this White House back to its best self — and someday offer respite from the endless war of the extremes.

Remembering Russert



It was one year ago this past weekend that Tim Russert, host of NBC’s Meet the Press, died suddenly of a heart attack. His loss dealt a staggering blow to an industry that has struggled to replace, in vain, his journalistic integrity.

Russert was a throwback, a diamond in the rough and a maverick among his peers. Respected by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and equally feared, Russert became an iconic figure in American culture, as well as the very face of politics itself in Washington. His no-nonsense, non-partisan style of interviewing was refreshing to watch, especially in lieu of what usually passed for the plethora of weekly programs that his competition felt obliged to produce.

Throughout the 2008 presidential primary campaigns, Russert was, if nothing else, relentless in asking the tough, probing questions that few, if any, of his contemporaries had the stomach to ask. He was a devout Catholic, but he never let his faith interfere with his interviewing technique. He had no patience for tabloid journalism, which sadly has risen to almost epic proportions throughout the 24-hour news channels. He equally had little love or use for pandering to prominent politicians who appeared on Meet the Press. He had a job to do, and that was getting at the truth, no matter how excruciating it might be for the guest. He felt he owed it to the viewers, as well as to his guests, to be both tough and fair-minded, and the results spoke for themselves.

Over the last twelve months many have speculated what the political landscape would’ve looked like had Russert not been cut down so tragically; sadly we will never know. What we do know is that his like will never be seen again, at least not for quite some time. His successor on Meet the Press, David Gregory, has done a credible and competent job, but has not come close to replacing Russert.

For my part, what I miss most is how superbly Russert cut to the chase and forced so many of his guests to admit to mistakes or misjudgments that lesser journalists would’ve winced at. He was the ultimate gotcha journalist in an industry that loves the likes of a Larry King and who sought a kinder, don’t rock the boat approach from its “professionals.”

That he is still revered by so many one year after his passing is a tribute to the man’s authenticity and accomplishments; that no one has come close to replacing him speaks volumes for the industry he loved so much and worked so hard at dignifying.

The Garden and the Journey: Making Sense Out of Genesis.

I have always been fascinated by the attention so many Christians pay towards the book of Genesis. It is a book, like Revelation, that has been the center of attention of biblical scholars for centuries, not to mention the subject of countless controversies. St. Augustine devoted an entire book on the subject, aptly titled “The Literal Meaning of Genesis” in 415 AD.

We all heard the account, either in Sunday school, or as in my case, Catechism. God created the heavens and the earth in six days, resting on the seventh day. His crowning achievement, man, was created on day six, though we’re not quite sure when he created woman. He told the man and woman (Adam and Eve) to be fruitful and increase in number.

Everything was going according to plan until the serpent (Satan) tricked Eve into eating from the “forbidden” tree. Eve then tricked Adam into doing the same, and thus “The Fall” occurred. Adam and Eve were banished from paradise and all their descendents have had the stain of original sin ever since.

Literalists – those who believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis – are convinced that everything happened just like it was written. The heavens and earth and all that we see were created in six actual days; that there were two actual people named Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and that their first two children were Cain and Able; and from these two individuals – both men by the way – all civilization descended.

Those who take a more literary stance, suggest that the biblical account of creation is more a sonnet than an actual historical account, much like popular songs of today with verses and refrains. Adam and Eve are more symbolic characters meant to represent not so much the origin of man like some genealogical lineage but rather mankind in general. The Garden of Eden is less a place than a state of being in which man was given the choice to live under God’s will or to choose to go his own way. The serpent represents the dilemma of free will and the apple represents what happens when we chose unwisely.

The journey that is Man’s is always played out in the biblical account of Genesis, for this is where so many literalists go awry. The Garden is not some mythical place that we need to search for like the Ark. It is found within our hearts and minds. For every day of our lives – in deed every waking minute – we are given the choice to live under God’s will for us, or to eat of the apple and proceed under our own unaided will. The expulsion from Eden is our choice, just as it is our choice to come back into right relationship with God. It is both the blessing and curse of that ultimate gift called free will. We get to choose whether we will live in peace under the guidance of a loving God or to toil and struggle with the sin that exists within our hearts and pay the ultimate price: separation.

The most interesting thing about the biblical account of Genesis that often goes unmentioned is that God could’ve roped off the forbidden tree making it impossible for Eve to get to; instead he left it totally accessible. Thus God introduced temptation to us. And like those two fabled individuals whose constitution failed them when it was needed most, we too fail when tested. Our struggle is not with the forbidden fruit, but with what it represents. Deep down, man has always struggled with submission. We often think of it has defeat. What we have deep down always craved is to be as powerful as God. Our demons are those lies that we listen to that tell us we don’t need any help, least of all from some God who only seeks to rule our lives and kill our joy. We can have it all without any consequences; all we have to is move away from God (eat the apple) and be our own gods.

Simple and equally false. The enemy is not some mythical serpent in paradise but rather our own arrogance; and that arrogance leads to our own individual falls as we misuse that which God gave us freely. In short we are given the keys to freedom but instead prefer imprisonment. But escape, like a get out of jail free card, is available anytime we seek it. For in the final analysis the garden was never taken from us; we walked out of it with our eyes wide open. We can always return to it any time we choose. It is a choice we have been given by a God who knew all too well what we were capable of and who, in spite of our sinful ways, still loves us and wants us back in the fold.

Who Is To Blame?
Domestic Terrorism and the Anti-Abortion Lunatics Who Encourage It.

Whatever your personal views on abortion, know this: the murder of Dr. George Tiller in the sanctuary of the Reformation Church in Wichita, Kansas this past Sunday by Scott Roeder was nothing short of an act of domestic terror. No building was brought down, or jet hijacked, or car bomb detonated. And yet, the forces that brought about this hideous act of violence within the supposed safe confines of a church sanctuary are as diabolical as the actions of those who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11. For in the final analysis, Scott Roeder was merely a pawn used by those to achieve their ends by any means necessary.

And who is to blame? All of us, that’s who. Like so many other conscientious Christians, I have written many times about the inability or unwillingness of the Church to call out the Pharisees within its ranks, to no avail. The result has been a myopic, almost single-minded movement that has taken root and come to represent what to many unbelievers is the predominant voice in Christianity. A voice which is neither predominant, nor representative of the Body of Christ.

Sick, twisted individuals like Randall Terry, who founded “Operation Rescue” in 1987, and who basically ran out on his first wife, have gone out of their way to rile up their minions to fever pitch and helped set in motion the events which culminated in Tiller’s murder. He and his ilk are as guilty as the lunatic who pulled the trigger. But all of us are culpable as well. Our silence and, yes, indifference allowed the rage against Tiller and other doctors like him to build to fever pitch, until there was no place for it to go.

When these hate-filled organizations encourage acts of violence against doctors just because they perform a procedure that is offensive to them, where is the indignation from the true believers? Did Jesus kill or encourage the killing of those who sinned? Of course not. Just the opposite. Christ loved the sinners of his time, and was more often than not seen with them. It was the proud and righteous - the religious elders – that he shunned.

2,000 years later it is still no different. Witness the statement that Terry issued immediately after the shooting. “George Tiller was a mass murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder. Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”

Where is the humility or the mercy of Christ? There is not even a miniscule of regret for his own role in inciting the very act. The word “peacefully” is comical in its context. No one who has ever had to contend with such venom would ever mistake such actions for those of peace-minded and God-loving folk. Such individuals are psychotic, nothing more, nothing less; as psychotic as the hijackers who flew those planes into the Twin Towers almost eight years ago. Worse, for the Islamic extremists who felt compelled to hate us enough to go to such lengths to kill us did not know any better. Theirs was an ideology and a philosophy that blinded them to the truth that all men are children of God. Christians, it is said, are supposed to know better. Our bible commands us to love one another, even those who do things that we consider sinful. We are to hate the sin, not the sinner.

And as long as we allow those who hate and condemn to death the sinner without reproach, and in the process allow them to define our faith for us in the eyes of the world, we will forever have the stain of innocent blood on our hands. Now is the time for all of us to speak out against this insanity; to rise up in righteous rage, like Christ did when he discovered his father’s temple was being misused. You needn’t have approved of what George Tiller did for a living to be outraged by his murder. That people who do not call themselves Christian get that is the irony or ironies; that many of our flock sadly do not is the shame of our faith.

Shouting Fire in a Crowded Movie House: How the Right is Looking to Incite the Gullible with Lies and Slander

From time to time – usually when I’m bored - I slum it as it were and turn on the last bastion of conservative talk left on the radio: WABC 770 on you’re A.M. dial just in case you too needed to be reminded of how nice it is that you still have a brain capable of discernment. For the vast majority of those lost and timid souls who call this station their home that, sadly, cannot be said. I give good old Imus in the Morning a brief listen. Not as funny as he was before he was fired, but it does bring back memories. Then there’s Joe Scarborough, the lone conservative voice on MSNBC, who no doubt feels like a prisoner on furlough when he is on the radio among his “peers”. From there it goes down hill fast. Rush Limbaugh from noon to three, followed by Sean Hannity from three to six. And then it all comes to a crescendo with my personal favorite: Mark R. Levin – the R stands for repulsive - from six to whenever I finally give in and throw up. Listening to these stooges spew is like eating lunch at a McDonald’s or Burger King; you know it’s polluting your insides, but you go anyway for the entertainment value of it all.

While you may have thought that getting thoroughly routed in last year’s election would elicit some degree of soul searching among the ring-bearers of the right wing of the Republican party, if anything it has embolden them like never before. When they were in power they were obnoxious enough, now that they are out of power and flirting with extinction, they have turned on the afterburners, leaving nothing in the proverbial bullpen. Everything Obama stands for is socialism; OK we get that part. Fascists referring to the opposition as socialist and or Communist is standard operating procedure among this lot. But it isn’t so much the rhetoric as the tone that has me alarmed. Between the “Tea Party” hoopla, which has been funded mainly by large corporate interests and Fox News as opposed to the grass roots groups it was supposed to have been funded by, and the hysterical nincompoops who call in to the Lords of Incitement, all of whom have been whipped up into a frenzy over the future of America under “Emperor Obama”, the stage has been set for something potentially dangerous to happen.

While I never expect the words responsible and conservative to be seen together in the same sentence these days, I at least have some reasonable expectation that some degree of discipline be observed, even among those individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated little love for the word. But when supposedly grown, mature leaders in the Republican Party suggest it would be OK to secede from the United States rather than be party to a democratically elected President’s policy; or that it is time to “take back our country” as Glenn Beck said a couple of weeks ago on Fox, perhaps not quite realizing that such a statement could be inferred to suggest an armed rebellion against his own government, which is tantamount to treason; or when groups of people gather at “staged” events and openly suggest a less than peaceful solution to the Communist horde currently infiltrating Washington, then it is time to officially be concerned. In fact it is time to be VERY concerned.

The degree to which these minions have been whipped up into a lather by this throng of demagogues is rapidly approaching critical mass. A catastrophic climax will result unless some sanity prevails. Unfortunately, sanity is not something that the far Right has been known to exhibit. Do not kid yourselves. Unstable and unbalanced people do not need much prodding to do stupid things. One of the reasons the Nazi party is still in business in this country is because they seek out emotionally scarred and gullible teenagers and recruit them into their ranks. They poison their minds by telling them that the Jews, “niggers” and “Spics” are out to end their way of life and that the only “responsible” thing to do is stand up to them and “take back” what has been wrongfully stolen from them. Their inciting and provocative language is directly aimed at those who can least understand the manipulation that is at work. They are the ultimate victims of scam artists who seek not enlightenment, but violence and death.

Change a few words here and there and what you have is a perfect illustration of how the lunatic Right has embraced this philosophy. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Laura Ingraham and Mark Levin have made a living of not just lying to their listeners, but deliberately inciting them to even entertain the notion that Obama is their sworn enemy and that defeating him by any means is not only necessary, but patriotic. At no point have any of them shown any inclination to quell emotional callers who suggest acts of violence against the government; in deed just the opposite. They have gone out their way to fan the flames of discontent. Hannity, himself, has a website that for some time now has had posts from individuals with various revolutionary scenarios, with armed rebellion and secession leading the way.

At some point the issue of free speech must succumb to the very real and dangerous charge of sedition. Shouting fire in a crowded movie house when there is no fire, is NOT free speech, and the Supreme Court said as much. There is a line that all responsible citizens must never cross. Intelligent and honest debates can be waged between reasonable people without resorting to Gestapo tactics. I remember watching William F. Buckley on “Firing Line” many years ago. I disagreed with many of his views, and were he alive today, I’m sure he would disagree with many of President Obama’s policies. I doubt seriously that he would resort to such reprehensible conduct as inciting his listeners in such a manner. Buckley, in all probability, would be appalled at what has happened to his beloved Republican Party, and probably condemn such acts as lunacy and suicidal, counter productive to any rational discourse on the issues of the day, and make no mistake about it, no matter how you or I felt about his views – he was a neocon and extreme fiscal conservative – he invited debate. He lived for the challenge of welcoming his foes and vanquishing them on his show, not by clubbing them to death, but by showing them the folly of their ways with the logical precision of a master debater who was passionate and intellectual, all in the same breath.

Perhaps that is what is wrong with the Republican Party. It has shifted away from those individuals who had a vision and a moral compass, but who also had the intellectual sophistication to persuade people in an open forum. Ideas and ideals were not alien; in fact they were germane to the very discourse they were engaged in. They were not afraid of defeat, for they knew that the Republic would always survive no matter who won. They would live to fight another day, for their cause, at least in their minds, was just.

That Republican Party is long gone. Fear, ignorance and hatred are all that is left of the party of Lincoln. Reagan is but a ghost of himself, and the lunatics have in deed taken over the asylum. But that is not the threat here. That they have succeeded in taking over the asylum is one thing; that they are threatening to break out and start a riot is quite another. Repeating inflammatory statements over and over to a captive audience which is too naïve to know better is beneath contempt. This is no longer about the differences between liberalism and conservatism, which I agree would be an entertaining and vital debate for the country. This has now become a freak show that if it isn’t put in check could prove injurious to unsuspecting people, perhaps even threaten the President himself.

If you think I’m getting a bit ahead of myself here, know this. Hitler kept repeating slanderous lies about the Jews long before he came to power in Germany. Six million of them were killed in death camps. If history has taught us anything it is that if you keep repeating something over and over, no matter how outlandish and untrue it is, eventually enough people will believe you. If referring to President Obama as a socialist bent on destroying the principles and values of America is not provocative and inciting, I don’t know what is. As we learned in Dallas in 1963, it only takes one bullet to kill a President. I pray we never have to relive that dreadful moment in our history.

The More Things Change...

While driving to work on Saturday, this classic Who song came on the radio. Mind you, I'm not implying that Barack Obama is George Bush - I'll leave that to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the gang - but with regard to the last blog I wrote on government surveillance, the Obama Department of Justice stance, and what it means to our individual liberties, I am growing increasingly concerned. I looked up the lyrics to the song and found some disturbing parallels. It may just be a 38 year old rock song, or it may portend something far more ominous.


"Won't Get Fooled Again"
lyrics by Pete Townshend

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
For I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

Yeah!

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

And Justice For Some!

A victory and a setback for the Justice Department this month. Is one out of two as good as it gets these days?

The decision last week by Attorney General Eric Holder to “dismiss the indictment” of former Alaskan senator Ted Stevens and “not proceed with a new trial,” signaled a radical departure from the standard operating procedure of the Justice Department that for the last eight years presided over a long list of one embarrassment after another. Stevens' lawyer, Brendan Sullivan Jr., praised Holder as "a pillar of integrity" for his decision to disregard a jury verdict that they said was obtained unlawfully. He called the prosecutors' behavior "stunning." Actually, stunning doesn’t quite sum up the conduct of the Justice Department under George Bush. When it wasn’t firing attorneys due to politics, it was blindly ignoring the Constitution by looking the other way while detainees at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib were tortured. No, obscene is a far more appropriate description, and Holder’s decision to walk away from the conviction speaks volumes not only to his good judgment, but his determination to, slowly but surely, clean out the stench that has tarnished the nation’s legal arm for far too long.

All of which makes this latest decision by the Justice Department not only baffling, but infuriating. In a stunning defense of President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, President Barack Obama has broadened the government’s legal argument for immunizing his Administration and government agencies from lawsuits surrounding the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping efforts. In fact, a close read of a government filing last Friday reveals that the Obama Administration has gone beyond any previous legal claims put forth by former President Bush. Responding to a lawsuit filed by a civil liberties group, the Justice Department argued that the government was protected by “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits because of a little-noticed clause in the Patriot Act.

For the first time, the Obama Administration’s brief contends that government agencies cannot be sued for wiretapping American citizens even if there was intentional violation of US law. They maintain that the government can only be sued if the wiretaps involve “willful disclosure” — a higher legal bar. “A ‘willful violation’ in Section 223(c(1) refers to the ‘willful disclosure’ of intelligence information by government agents, as described in Section 223(a)(3) and (b)(3), and such disclosures by the Government are the only actions that create liability against the United States,” Obama Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz wrote.

Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is suing the government over the warrantless wiretapping program, notes that the government has previously argued that changes to the Patriot Act protected the government from lawsuits surrounding eavesdropping. But he says that this is the first time that they've made the case that the Patriot Act protects the government from all surveillance statutes. "They are arguing this based on changes to the law made by the USA PATRIOT Act, Section 223," Bankston said in an email to Raw Story. "We've never been fans of 223, but no one's ever suggested before that it wholly immunized the U.S. government against suits under all the surveillance statutes."

Salon columnist and constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald — who is generally supportive of progressive interpretations of the law — says the Obama Administration has “invented a brand new claim” of immunity from spying litigation. “In other words, beyond even the outrageously broad ’state secrets’ privilege invented by the Bush Administration and now embraced fully by the Obama Administration, the Obama Department of Justice has now invented a brand new claim of government immunity, one which literally asserts that the U.S. Government is free to intercept all of your communications (calls, emails and the like) and — even if what they’re doing is blatantly illegal and they know it’s illegal — you are barred from suing them unless they ‘willfully disclose’ to the public what they have learned,” Greenwald wrote Monday.

On Tuesday’s episode of “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”, in an exchange with Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, Olbermann observed that this decision by the Administration is analogous to saying “I could go and steal your money. If I don‘t spend it, I‘m not guilty of anything.”

Turley laughed then went on to say “you cannot any longer suggest that President Obama is advancing the civil liberties and the privacy interest that he promised to advance. This is a terrible rollback. It‘s a terrible decision. And the Obama people seem to be arguing that—well, the Bush people were bad people doing bad things. But you know what? It doesn‘t matter if you are a good person doing bad things. You are doing bad things. And that‘s what this is.”

Stunning is the only word that comes to mind. This decision one up’s the Bush Administration’s policy on eavesdropping. Not only is it unconscionable, it basically signals an end to any hope some have had that the Obama Administration will seek prosecution of Bush Administration officials for torture.

Slowly, but surely this president, far from being a modern-day image of Bobby Kennedy, who had a penchant for challenging the establishment much to the dismay of some in his own party, is looking more and more like his older brother John. Like the 35th president, Obama has displayed little stomach for knocking over the apple cart, as it were, and seems more concerned with pursuing policy over principals. We all remember that Kennedy had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the civil rights issues of the early ‘60s. His successor, Lyndon Johnson was far more aggressive in this arena and was instrumental in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And yet, like Kennedy, Obama enjoys a popularity seldom seen among presidents.

Pragmatism can sometimes be a virtuous thing; no doubt it will serve Obama well in the months and years ahead of him, for however long his administration lasts. But there are times when it must come second to core principals and values. At some point Barack Obama must come out and definitively state what he stands for and what he is against. Closing Guantanamo and declaring that the United States does not torture, but refusing to prosecute those who did; criticizing his predecessor for past policies that violated the Constitution and then expanding on some of those very same policies isn’t just hypocritical, it undermines the very hope he promised to bring to Washington when he ran for President last year.

I hope that he comes to his senses and realizes the destiny his candidacy promised during last year’s campaign. But I fear that, far from being the transformational figure we all thought we were voting for, he will turn out to be an effective and pragmatic president; a good but hardly transformational leader. And that would be a damn shame, given his seeming talents.

AIG & Bipartisanship: Perfect Together!

When all else fails to unite Democrats and Republicans, bring on the Sharks.

You’ve got to hand it to those executives over at AIG. How did they know that what the country needed most – namely a united political front – was just a handful of bonuses away. With such superior insightfulness, no wonder the economy is booming! Witness the following morsels of bipartisanship. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, you’re up first. "It is an outrageous situation. If you are going to take the government as a partner, the message to any business out there...is 'lets enter into a bunch of contracts real quick and we'll have the taxpayers pay bonuses to our employees.' This is an outrage." Next up, Republican senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa was somewhat more adept in his use of colorful metaphors. “The first thing that would make me feel a little bit better towards them, if they had followed the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, "I'm sorry," and then either do one of two things, resign or go commit suicide.” Grassley eventually backtracked from the comments.

From the other side of the aisle, "There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what's happened at AIG is the most outrageous," said Larry Summers, chairman of the White House National Economic Council, appearing on ABC's This Week. But Summers also said there didn’t appear to be anything the government could legally do to prevent the bonuses from being paid out. "It is wrong," said Rep. Barney Frank, the chair of the House Financial Services Committee on Fox News. "This is an example of people at the commanding heights of the economy misbehaving, abusing the system." The last time Democrats and Republicans were this much in agreement, Moses was parting the Red Sea, or was that Noah building an arc. It’s hard to tell; it was so long ago.

But to get serious here, the AIG fiasco is but a microcosm of the economic nightmare that is living itself out in front of our very eyes. And before this nightmare is over millions of people will be devastated financially, and millions more will be adversely affected in a profound way. My fear is we may not have even hit bottom yet. We are tempted to think that this recession began in 2008, but in reality it had its genesis nearly ten years ago during the Clinton Administration. It was in November of 1999 that Bill Clinton, bowing to pressure by Congressional Republicans and deeply wounded politically by the Monica Lewinsky affair, signed into law the Financial Services Modernization Act, which basically did away with the restrictions imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the core tenants of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each-others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated. The significance of this Act cannot be overstated enough. Banks, heavily regulated, were now free to acquire financial services institutions, which weren’t under the careful scrutiny of regulatory agencies. Citigroup was basically born out of the new Act.

For over 65 years the old law acted like a damn to stem the currents of unbridled market forces, and the result was decades of relative economic stability, with the occasional recession here and there to remind the country of the inherent shortcomings of a capitalistic society. The fact that we have not had anything as devastating as the Great Depression since the 1930s, was proof that the Glass-Steagall Act, like so many similar regulatory laws, was working. Repealing it was bad enough, but when Congress failed to enact any meaningful regulations to monitor the new financial institutions that were being formed, they invited the ensuing disaster.

Now the Obama Administration, owing to the public outrage, is acting to bring these “hybrid” corporations under regulatory control realizing that they can’t put the toothpaste as it were back in the tube. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner proposed Thursday a drastic expansion of federal regulation covering the market's major players. Geithner's proposal, outlined in testimony to Congress, would provide for government oversight of secretive hedge funds. It also would mandate strict regulation of exotic derivative contracts such as credit default swaps that were blamed for much of the financial meltdown.

Speaking to the House Financial Services Committee, Geithner said the markets have become "too unstable and fragile." He added, "To address this will require comprehensive reform; not modest repairs at the margin, but new rules of the game. We need much stronger standards for openness, transparency and plain commonsense language throughout the financial system."

The plan, which requires congressional action, would set most standards for financial reporting on firms deemed "too big to fail," or those that could threaten the economy in a collapse. The biggest institutions, under rules to be drafted, would answer to a single agency. Geithner's plan also would require hedge funds and other private pools of capital to register with the SEC if their assets exceed a threshold to be set.

While Democrats were largely supportive of Geithner’s plan, many Republicans were skeptical of giving the federal government that much power, with some of the usual suspects (thought I forgot about you, Fox?) even going so far as to call it socialism. Well so much for bipartisanship.

In truth, Geithner’s plan is the least that can be done to not only regulate this new part of the economy, but to prevent a repeat of this calamity. In all likelihood it is too late to break up these institutions, at least not in the manner that some have suggested, but it is vital to the nation’s economic health that systemic risk be minimized. The specter of a Citigroup or J.P. Morgan Chase or A.I.G. going under and possibly taking several other institutions with them, is a risk no responsible president can permit. Give this much credit to Obama, whether you agree with his policies or not, he is a far better steward of this economy than his predecessor. And that is something we can all be grateful for, in a time when gratitude is hard to come by.

Brace Yourself.

Things are Looking Up in the Knee Department.

It’s been six weeks since my inexplicable right knee injury that has caused me to miss work and go on disability, and for the first time since I got the news, I can see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not a train.

First off, I went to see the doctor last Monday, March 2nd. He was sufficiently impressed with the progress the knee had made – I was able to lift it completely up without the immobilizer on – hence I was able to go to physical therapy to start the process of strengthening the knee so I could return to work.

The first visit to the PT was hardly encouraging. While I could lift the leg up, I was not able to bend the knee more than 20 degrees, not without tremendous pain. Depressing, but he gave me some exercises to do at home designed to increase range on the knee. Over the next three sessions, I have not only gotten the range to 100 degrees, but I now have sufficient strength to walk around the house without a brace on. The pain is all but gone, and I am continuing to work on both range and strength. In four PT sessions I am amazed at the progress I am making.

As a result of this progress, I will be returning to work part time as of Saturday. I have no illusions as to the time this will take. It has only been a little over a week since I started PT; clearly there is a long road ahead. I still can’t legally drive yet; that is still over a week away. But what a difference 10 days makes.

Thank you to all of you who kept me in your prayers these last six weeks. I am half way home. By the end of the month I hope to be fully recovered, or pretty close to it.


Blessings,

Peter

Send In the Clown:

How Rush Limbaugh Took Over the Republican Party.


Watching this year’s CPAC, I couldn’t help but conclude how much the mighty have fallen. What was once a political juggernaut set to lay waste to the entire landscape of the nation has now been reduced to a mere shell of its once impregnable stature. It’s hard to believe it but the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower and Reagan has now become the party of Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter. Collectively they make Sarah Palin look like a Girl Scout selling cookies. Few examples in political folklore have documented such a historic decline in fortunes and in such a short span of time. As Jon Stewart of The Daily Show succinctly put it, “Three years ago the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress; now they control one fifth of The View.” And Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report jokingly remarked, “Rush Limbaugh doesn’t care what the Constitution says, which is proof that he is the true leader of the Republican Party.”

All comedic references aside, the demise of the Republican Party to the status of a minor league baseball team only goes to prove the classic axiom that nature abhors a vacuum. The Reagan revolution of the 1980s galvanized the conservative wing of the Republican Party like nothing it had ever known before. Not even Goldwater in 1964 could come close. Reagan brought together all the elements of the party from evangelicals to fiscal conservatives to the neo-cons. More importantly, he managed to do something no politician had ever done before or since; he controlled them. His brilliance often went unnoticed by the media who seemed more impressed with his great communicator persona over the American public. Few knew about or appreciated the talents he displayed behind the scenes among party leaders. It was no small feat keeping the likes of Jerry Falwell, William F. Buckley and Oliver North happy and in line. But as adept as Reagan was in playing Romper Room with the troops, he was not perfect. One of the mistakes he made occurred in 1985, when FCC Chairman Mark Fowler, under his direction, began the systematic repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Despite Congressional efforts to preempt the repeal, and over the concerns expressed by some in his staff, the Doctrine was abolished altogether in August 1987.

Initially the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine was seen by Reagan as a triumph of First Amendment rights. However, it had the unforeseen effect of acting as a springboard for ultra rightwing talk radio, and later TV, formats. Almost immediately a plethora of conservative ideologues began showing up all over the airwaves, spreading their poisonous viewpoints. The first of these gurus to appear on the scene was Rush Limbaugh, whose show debuted in August 1988. Limbaugh was tacky, obnoxious, racist, myopic and sexist, but he was also very successful. His ratings continued to soar despite the negative reviews he was receiving in the mainstream press. In fact a familiar theme with Limbaugh was how biased the mainstream press was towards what he called “conservatism.” His continual incitement of his supporters against anything that smacked of the mainstream became a core element of his show. In deed it became his whole raison d'être. Between 1990 and 2002, more conservative talk show hosts such as the likes of Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity and our personal favorite Ann Coulter began their journeys through fantasyland. With no Fairness Doctrine to serve as arbiter of checks and balances they were free to say anything they wished no matter how outlandish. They became in essence the standard bearers of the conservative movement in the United States. A political party that once championed intellectuals such as William F. Buckley, now kowtowed to the lowest common denominator of the likes of Fox News. With no Reagan to real them in and with an incompetent and scandal-ridden Bush Administration the only thing standing in their way, the inmates took over the asylum.

And that is where things currently stand in the GOP. A party so bereft of leadership that its knees quake at the mere thought of saying or doing anything that might offend the true boss of the conservative movement. And who is the true boss, you ask? Not Ronald Reagan or William F. Buckley – both men are dead and buried. Not even George Will, though some have suggested he might as well be dead and buried, metaphorically speaking of course. No, the reigning king of the faithful flock is none other than Rush Limbaugh. That’s right, you heard me correctly, Rush Limbaugh. A man who doesn’t know the difference between the Preamble of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, a man who once said that feminism was established so as to allow ugly women access to the mainstream of society, now sits atop the throne - self anointed - ruling with iron fist and closed mind a kingdom of clueless subjects completely devoid of any backbone or integrity, and equally unaware of how perilous a fate their capitulation has made for them.

Really, it’s been quite a sight watching the Republican Party bend over backwards and genuflect at the mere mention of Rush’s name. S.S. men were more informal around Hitler than Republicans were around Rush. Of course there were those rare occasions when one of their own slipped and actually spoke his mind. For instance when Georgia representative Phil Gingrey publicly criticized Limbaugh in January for going after Republican leadership for their seeming appeasement of President Obama, his office was flooded with complaints from Rush’s minions. The result? Gingrey did an immediate about face and issued a mea culpa, even going so far as to appear on Limbaugh’s show to personally repent. Prior to the Gingrey/Limbaugh incident House Republicans had vowed to cooperate with Democrats on drafting the economic stimulus package. One day after Gingrey was forced to apologize to Limbaugh a vote was taken on the stimulus package, with all 177 House Republicans voting against it. Hmmm.

On March 1st, RNC Chairman Michael Steele got into hot water when he claimed on a CNN interview that HE and not Rush was “the de facto leader of the Republican Party,” and that “Limbaugh’s whole thing is entertainment. Yes it’s incendiary; yes it’s ugly.” It took little more than 24 hours for Steele to come to his senses and apologize for his faux pas, even going so far as to lie about what he actually said and meant in the interview. Over the last week it seems the entire Republican Party has gone out of its way to not only praise Limbaugh, but to call out anyone who hasn’t drank the Kool Aid as it were.

Pundits on both sides of the political aisle have been shaking their heads in amazement at the lunacy that is the Republican Party. U.S. News & World Report, hardly a paragon of liberal ideas, called Limbaugh “the bull in the GOP’s china shop,” and said that “Republicans must lose the titans of glib and greed: Limbaugh, Drudge and Coulter.” Media Matters, a non-profit, progressive and liberal publication, chimed in by saying that “Barack Obama didn't elevate Rush Limbaugh to a position of leadership of the GOP and the conservative movement. Limbaugh has held that position for nearly two decades - and he has done so because his fellow conservative leaders share his far-right views and his rabid distaste for fact and reason. Their embrace of Limbaugh and his failed ideology has had disastrous consequences first for the nation and then for the conservative movement.” What Media Matters and other publications have failed to see is that with the exception of its early days when Lincoln was its leader the GOP has never been able to embrace any other ideology. It is the consummate case of the chain smoker who has lung cancer, and even though his life depends on it, cannot bring himself to stop. A "moderate" Republican is a misnomer within its ranks and is often considered a traitor to many in the Party.

Despite the calamity that awaits them politically, the Republican Party seems unable or unwilling to break free of its adoration of what it earnestly believes is the only legitimate icon within its ranks. Like Oliver, they grovel in front of the head clown pleading, “Please, sir, I want some more.” And when they do occasionally cross him, they eagerly line up to take their punishment, like the frat house kid in Animal House who bends over, assumes the position and, while he’s getting his bottom paddled, repeats over and over, “Thank you, sir, may I have another.” If it weren’t so pitiful, it would be comical.

And while a nation watches in astonishment at the spectacle, the prospect of one party rule for the foreseeable future is a very real possibility, for the ones who are hurting the most are not the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys or the Ann Coulters; they’re doing just fine. In fact, Limbaugh is among the highest paid talkshow gurus in the country. No, it’s the Republican Party as a whole that’s taking the hit. As a brand, the party isn’t just hurting, it’s hemorrhaging, and if it doesn’t snap out of this soon, it may go the way of the Whig Party, a Party that was formed in 1833 primarily to oppose the policies of Andrew Jackson and the Democratic Party. Sound familiar? David Brooks, a respected conservative in The New York Times and The Weekly Standard, has been adamant that the Republicans are missing a golden opportunity to help shape fiscal policy by being so intransigent in their “just say no” opposition to the Obama Administration, calling it a form of nihilism. “It's just not where the country is, it's not where the future of the country is. It’s insane.”

Insanity, nihilism, intransigence are all words that are synonymous with the Republican Party. At the rate it’s going, they could well end up being its epitaph. Rarely has a political party arrived at such a station in its existence where the cubbard is bare. The last such time a similar situation arose was the demise of that very same Whig Party in 1856. The irony is that the Republican Party was born mainly out of that demise. 150 years later, it seems hell bent on returning the favor.

Millard Fillmore anyone?

How Free is Free?
Understanding the Truth Behind the Christian Walk.

“You are not your own; you were bought at a price.” - 1 Corinthians 6:19-20.

Being a recovering alcoholic I have often heard many, so called, oldtimers, say this repeatedly at meetings: “Don’t drink and go to meetings,” as though that was all that was required to get sober. Actually the only stated requirement for membership in Alcoholics Anonymous is a desire to stop drinking. A closer look at the lives of the men and women who make up the ranks of A.A. will reveal a more startling reality. True sobriety consists of far more than merely refraining from drinking and attending meetings. It is a never-ending process of self exploration and change, a spiritual journey that transforms us from the person we were to the person God meant us to be. The difference between a person who is merely abstinent from alcohol and someone who is practicing the spiritual tools – the 12 steps – of the program is about as dramatic as night is from day. The former is still in bondage to a disease, which though it is kept a bay for the time being, is alive and well and lurking inside the soul ready at any moment to take control and perhaps kill; the latter lives a life which is happy, joyous and free from the misery and suffering that the disease attempts to instill. Both are still alcoholics with an incurable disease, but one has no way out and chooses to white knuckle as it were the rest of their life; the other has found peace and contentment. One is stuck in the past and fears the future; the other lives in the moment.

But freedom, joy and peace are not states of mind that come easy to just anybody. This “never-ending process” is difficult and demands the ultimate sacrifice from us: namely that we die to our old way of living and embrace a rigorous and fearless commitment to live out a spiritual walk. While there are officially 12 steps in this spiritual walk, they can be reduced to 3 basic tenants: 1. A total reliance upon a loving God; 2. A thorough review of our conduct and atonement for past wrongs; and 3. Carrying the message of recovery to others. This walk is not for the faint of heart, and no body has ever done it perfectly. To the extent though that we put the effort in we have that much peace and serenity. It is not easy, but it is simple.

Often I have thought of the Christian walk in much the same way. We are in darkness and then we make a decision to accept Christ into our lives. For many that is it. They consider the matter closed. “I’m a Christian now; I’m going to heaven. Hallelujah!” Like the drunk who finds the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous, but doesn’t work the program, such a person never finds true peace and serenity. They belong to a special club, but have decided not to utilize all the amenities at their disposal. Worse yet, they are incapable of carrying the good news of their newfound state of being to another, chiefly because they really don’t have anything to carry. If anything they, themselves, are in need of a messenger of hope. Like the “dry drunk” in A.A. who pats him- or herself on the back for getting sober, they are oblivious as to how much they are missing in their lives.

Like sobriety, salvation is free; at least that’s what we’re told. Not that I am one to look a gift horse in the mouth, I’m a little skeptical of anything that comes free of charge. Or maybe I’ve seen too many people in the rooms of A.A. who talk a good talk but who are about as “free” as a fish in an ice cube. Membership maybe free, but my experience tells me that true freedom comes with a price. One of the most essential, but sadly overlooked, books in the Bible is the book of James. I call it the “Big Book” of Christianity. It contains a treasure trove of invaluable wisdom that should be required reading for any follower of Jesus. My favorite part of the book is where James is talking about faith and deeds, chapter 2 verses 14 – 18.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

In all the Bible there is nothing that comes as close as this passage to defining how we are to act toward others. It is, to put it bluntly, our marching orders as Christians. It is the very essence of walking the walk that sadly many Christians avoid at all costs, including, I’m sorry to say, myself many times. We pray for those who are sick or jobless; we give them a Bible when they have the courage to raise their hands in church. But how often do we really lend a hand to someone in need? Imagine if we could help get someone unemployed a job, or someone homeless a place to live, or someone hungry a bite to eat. Some in the Church do this, but for most of us it remains the elusive goal.

Keep in mind James isn’t telling us to stop praying; he’s telling us to put our money where our mouths are. And that has always been the 64 thousand dollar question. How ready are we as a Church to live out the above words on a daily basis? I keep hearing from supposedly wise people in the Church about how many people we can tell about the good news of Jesus. But I suspect that an awful lot of people already know about Jesus; what they don’t know enough about is who his followers are. Any body can read the Gospels and find out what Jesus stood for, but their opinions are not formed based on what a man did over 2,000 years ago; they are based on what we as disciples do in His name. We are accountable for living out our faith, not just professing it. When the Church gets caught up in wasteful ideological wars over political issues that don’t feed the hungry, house the homeless, or cure the sick the message that gets sent out to unbelievers is one of indifference and selfishness; the very things Jesus spent his whole ministry fighting against. The faith is stained by the actions of those who should know better.

A friend of mine is fond of saying that people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care. Our mission should always be to convey to everyone possible just how much we care, not by our words, but with our actions. Words are important, but they cannot reveal our hearts; and it is our hearts that Jesus was after more than anything else. The third step of recovery says that we “made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God.” Our will is our thoughts; our lives are those actions that stem from those thoughts. There is a reason that the words “will” and “lives” are both included in the step: it is impossible to be truly sober and not turn both over to God. As James might ask, “How possible is it to walk a Christian walk and not have both faith and deeds in our lives?” It is a rhetorical question of course, but for many in the Church it is our moment of truth, where the nature of our hearts is finally exposed.

We can’t live out the Christian life on our own unaided will, that much is true. But too often we use every excuse known to avoid even trying. I for one have had my share of excuses in the past, so I am no less guilty than most. I guess that means I’m calling myself out here. Like sobriety, being a Christian is not easy; if it were, everyone would be one. Doing what’s hard, though, is what we are called to do. True freedom isn’t as free as we think; but it is worthwhile, and the blessings earned are beyond our wildest dreams.

Some Sanity At CPAC: Mike Huckabee Stirs Up the Troops!

It was hard to find any semblance of coherent, intelligible or thought-provoking speeches at this year's CPAC, but out of the lunacy and chaos that seems to define the Republican party these days, one voice seemed to stand out among the crowd: Mike Huckabee.

I have attached his speech in its entirety. While I do not agree with all of his comments, including his take on Reaganomics, and even moderate conservatives like David Brooks have blasted the GOP tactics on the stimulus bill as "insane," it was refreshing to hear him take some responsibility on behalf of his party for its failures.

http://www.huckpac.com/?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=2179

I have been very tough on the Republicans, and have no intention of stopping any time soon. I disagree with their economics, and I have a rational fear of the social conservatives who have kidnapped the party, but Huckabee's speech impressed me, not because of its content, but because of its tone. Rebuilding a party takes time. Perhaps we will have a real debate on the issues in the next election, instead of talking about terrorists, traitors, socialists and other issues that most people could care less about.

Pay As You Go: The Great American Myth Exposed.

If you live long enough you’ll start believing that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real. No doubt, at which point you’ll be getting spoon fed at the nearest nursing home from a strapping young attendant doing their best to assure you that you weren’t really losing your mind. Everyone believes in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny! But, among the more predominant myths still in vogue and taking its place alongside the one about Baseball, Apple Pie and Chevrolet all being inexorably tied to our American heritage, none have been more damaging or just flat out erroneous as this inane belief among conservatives, and greatly enhanced by a gullible and ignorant media, that the Pay As You Go approach is desirable, much less workable, when it comes to the federal government. Anyone with access to a computer or an encyclopedia would immediately know better.

And yet, in the midst of an imploding economy, with the spigots all but shut off, supposedly intelligent people, and the bulk of the Republican party, are still talking about “fiscal discipline” as though the solution to all our problems would be to cut spending and balance the budget. Never mind that Herbert Hoover tried it during his term, with disastrous results. Never mind that in the entire history of the United States, once, and only once, did the nation have zero debt: January 8, 1835 under Andrew Jackson. A check of my blog about a month ago will tell you everything you need to know about what I think of him; suffice to say, with respect to his talents on the economy, he had a rather undistinguished presidency. He seemed far more concerned with growing his own little empire (see the Indian Removal Act of 1830) than with being a good steward of the country.

Even at America’s inception as a nation it owed more than it had on hand. As of January 8, 1791, the debt, owed principally to the Revolutionary War, was reported at just over $75 million, a significant number given the value of currency in those days. Thanks to the Civil War, the debt grew from $65 million to over $1 billion between 1860 and 1863. After the War, it reached $2.7 billion. The next two huge growth spurts in the debt occurred between 1940 and 1945 (World War II), from $51 billion to $260 billion and between 1980 and 1990 (the Reagan / Bush years), from $930 billion to $3.2 trillion. And while the Clinton Administration could claim some measure of solace in balancing the budget – in deed producing a surplus in its last year – the debt continued to mount, thanks to the interest owed on it. By 2000, it was $5.6 trillion. While fiscal conservatives touted prudence, one of their own – George Bush – doubled that debt to just under $11 trillion. Debt spending, regardless of party or circumstance, has a long history in U.S. domestic and foreign policy. As a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the debt from 1940 to 2008 ranged from a low of 33% in 1980 to 123% in 1945. Currently it is around 75%. Even with the proposed budget by Barack Obama, it is not expected to exceed the 1945 ratio.

Given the above statistics, one wonders how any rational person could make a case for pay as you go, spending policies. In deed, one could conclude that without deficit spending, much of our history would be considerably different. The Revolutionary War, the Civil War and the Second World War would’ve had significantly different outcomes for America had it been required to balance its annual budgets. Claims by fiscal conservatives, like the one that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on February 27th that the Obama budget “signaled a historic shift in the ideological direction of U.S. economic policy…to expand government activism," and that “Obama is attempting not merely to expand the role of the federal government but to put it in such a dominant position that its power can never be rolled back,” are not new; similar claims were made during Roosevelt’s Administration when he rolled out the New Deal. Not only were they incorrect, but the opposite was true. Deficit spending brought the country out of depression and allowed for the single greatest post-war boom in American history. Without the “irresponsible” spending that deficit hawks decry, baby boomers today would have a much different life story to tell their children.

This past week, the nation got a chance to hear from the Right at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or as I like to call it, the Can’t Produce Anything substantive Consortium. Speakers from Mitt Romney to Rush Limbaugh titillated the minions with tales of the by-gone days of laissez-faire capitalism, and personal heroes like Ronald Reagan. Never mind that Reagan tripled the debt; accuracy was not high on the priority list of the faithful. All week long they reveled in their exaltations of a time that sadly for them never existed; a time when people and government alike lived within their means, and debt was something to be shunned. Laudable if delusional, as though the federal budget and a personal checking account at Citibank were synonymous. But delusion is all the Right had at CPAC; it is all they have ever had. Year after year they trumpet supply-side, trickle-down economics and good old-fashioned family values, and roll out the Gipper for old time’s sake. They are the ultimate cheerleaders for a team that never existed, except of course in their fantasies.

Bush betrayed them, yes that was it. They need to be resolute in their resistance to the socialist agenda of emperor Obama and the liberal horde in Congress. Though they continue to shrink in size and significance as a major political party in the country, they are defiant, if nothing else. The louder they shout, the more asinine and irrelevant their stances become. Common sense and truth are not what is at work here. Be they evangelicals looking to imprint their religious doctrine on society, or the neo-cons who would have us invade every country on the globe, or 2nd Amendment fanatics who oppose any restriction on gun owners no matter how reasonable, or the supply-siders who see nothing wrong with the continuing purge of the middle class and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the power elite, this is a sad and pitiful bunch of miscreants, devoid of sanity and conscious. They rest their morbid hopes not in the health of the nation, but in some twisted Gothic calamity, which will no doubt permit them an opening to come to our rescue, like some tired and worn out John Wayne movie. Predictable and contemptuous. The Pharisees of Christ's time had nothing on these clowns.

Obama may or may not lead us out of this economic malaise. If he does, he will go down in history alongside FDR and Lincoln who met their respective crises not by burying their heads in the sand, but by rising up to the challenges of their times and having the courage to act decisively. Not only is he not steering the country in a direction toward unprecedented “government activism,” he is following in the grandest of presidential traditions by calling forth the full powers of the only entity in the nation capable of succeeding at the task: the federal government. If anything, the danger is that he might not go far enough. While the Republicans wail about the size of government, many economists are warning about the dangers of not being bold enough. They point to Japan in the 1990s as an example of a government that didn’t act swiftly or sufficiently enough when their economy started heading south; the result was a lost decade. The analogy with the United States is striking. When you add into the mix that we now live in a global market place where our actions, or lack thereof, could have a profound impact on the rest of the world, the prospect of a world-wide depression is a real possibility.

So there you have it. Like Custer at Little Big Horn, the Republicans continue to march onward, holding onto a edict that is as old and mythical as Old Saint Nick himself. So if you happen to look up in the sky one evening and you chance upon a merry old man bellowing “ho-ho-ho” on a minature sleigh led by eight tiny reindeer, don’t be concerned; he’s just headed toward next year’s CPAC. No doubt the bearded one will be the key-note speaker. Look out Rush!