Last week Pope Francis issued the first apostolic exhortation of his papacy. Speaking in defense of the poor and working classes of the world he said: "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power...Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed."
In addressing society's ills, Pope Francis referenced Exodus 32: 1-35. "The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings...How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"
what eye thynk: While Republicans had much to say about President Obama's relocating the American Embassy to the Vatican:
http://whateyethynk-politics.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-us-embassy-to-vatican-is-moving-ws.html, they were stultifyingly mute in response to the Papal slap down of their basic economic principles.
Where were prominent Catholics like John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum, Republican politicians who never fail to cite their Catholic faith as the foundation of their political agenda? When the Pope told the world their conservative economic policies are on the wrong side of church doctrine, unlike their usual rush to register a daily sound byte, they were remarkably silent. In fact, they had no defense whatsoever.
Instead, they let Rush Limbaugh speak for them. In a segment Mr. Limbaugh aired on Wednesday and which is now available on-line under the title It's Sad How Wrong Pope Francis Is (Unless It's a Deliberate Mistranslation By Leftists, he called the pope's message "dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong...This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the Pope."
The only things "dramatically" or "embarrassingly" wrong are the two disparate responses to the two big news items coming from the Vatican in recent days. The public gnashing of teeth over a non-issue like moving the Vatican Embassy and the silence over a large issue like being called out by the Pope for the basic premise of their economic agenda indicates how false is their claim to faith-based politics.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Monday, December 2, 2013
December 2 -- Monday Quote
Anyone who really knows me, knows that I am, at my deepest end, an introvert. I hate crowds, avoid parties where I don't know everyone, and despise talking on the phone. I often wish I were invisible so that I could enjoy a gathering without having to participate in it. Many of my fellow actors share these same traits (Okay, maybe not the invisibility thing--that's number one on my own personal Super Power Wish List.)
Another thing about me is that I do not like nor listen to popular music. I prefer classical, for the most part, especially Gregorian chant and music from the Baroque period with the occasional sortie into the music of the Celts.
With those two things in mind, it was fate that put this quote by a pop music artist I had never heard of in a newspaper article I was reading recently.
monday quote: I learned not to want the quiet of the room with no one around to find me. (Lorde, singer/songwriter, real name Ella Maria Lani Yelich-O'Connor, 1996- )
Another thing about me is that I do not like nor listen to popular music. I prefer classical, for the most part, especially Gregorian chant and music from the Baroque period with the occasional sortie into the music of the Celts.
With those two things in mind, it was fate that put this quote by a pop music artist I had never heard of in a newspaper article I was reading recently.
monday quote: I learned not to want the quiet of the room with no one around to find me. (Lorde, singer/songwriter, real name Ella Maria Lani Yelich-O'Connor, 1996- )
Sunday, December 1, 2013
The U.S. Embassy to the Vatican is Moving -- W's Plan, Executed by Obama, Hated by Republicans
The Obama administration announced that it will be relocating our embassy to the Vatican. The present embassy is located in a free-standing building within the city of Rome. The move, scheduled to take place in 2015, will put the embassy inside the compound of the American Embassy to Italy--a larger and more secure facility, also located within the city of Rome, and one that is slightly closer to the Vatican itself. Locating the two embassies within the same compound will save $1.4 million per year.
Republicans are outraged.
what eye thynk: This is a story of media hype morphing into conservative outrage unsupported by any hint of a fact.
The Washington Times first reported the move on Wednesday: "The Obama administration, in what's been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy." The news was picked up and repeated by conservative media--minus the "relocate offices onto the grounds of..." part. Eventually, Fox Nation made it their lead story, again leaving out the information that the embassy was simply being relocated and making it sound as though the embassy were being eliminated entirely.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee began a petition drive to stop what they called "the latest anti-religion pursuit" of the Obama administration, a move "perceived by many Catholics as hostile and completely unnecessary", adding that the move "weakens America's position as a global leader."
Other Republican politicians joined the hue and cry. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) added his opinion that the embassy was being closed as "retribution" for the Vatican's "opposition" to the Affordable Care Act. (The Vatican opposes the ACA? Has anyone told the Pope yet?) Representative Michael Grimm (R-New York) said the move was a "slap in the face" to American Roman Catholics.
Contrary to all the Republican naysaying, a Vatican official responded to the move by saying that the Holy See understands there are security concerns with the current location and pointed out that other countries have made similar moves without incident. Anyone gifted with common sense would expect the more secure location and lower operational costs to elicit a positive response, especially from Republicans. (Remember Benghazi and the Republican call for better embassy security? And what about the Republican desire to reduce spending?) But condemnation is the Republican message of choice--no matter whether facts support it or not.
And one fact that Republicans have chosen to ignore completely: The building to which the Embassy to the Holy See will be moving was purchased during W's administration for the express purpose of moving the embassy there in the future. So maybe Republicans should be outraged at themselves.
Republicans are outraged.
what eye thynk: This is a story of media hype morphing into conservative outrage unsupported by any hint of a fact.
The Washington Times first reported the move on Wednesday: "The Obama administration, in what's been called an egregious slap in the face to the Vatican, has moved to shut down the U.S. Embassy to the Holy See and relocate offices onto the grounds of the larger American Embassy in Italy." The news was picked up and repeated by conservative media--minus the "relocate offices onto the grounds of..." part. Eventually, Fox Nation made it their lead story, again leaving out the information that the embassy was simply being relocated and making it sound as though the embassy were being eliminated entirely.
The National Republican Senatorial Committee began a petition drive to stop what they called "the latest anti-religion pursuit" of the Obama administration, a move "perceived by many Catholics as hostile and completely unnecessary", adding that the move "weakens America's position as a global leader."
Other Republican politicians joined the hue and cry. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) added his opinion that the embassy was being closed as "retribution" for the Vatican's "opposition" to the Affordable Care Act. (The Vatican opposes the ACA? Has anyone told the Pope yet?) Representative Michael Grimm (R-New York) said the move was a "slap in the face" to American Roman Catholics.
Contrary to all the Republican naysaying, a Vatican official responded to the move by saying that the Holy See understands there are security concerns with the current location and pointed out that other countries have made similar moves without incident. Anyone gifted with common sense would expect the more secure location and lower operational costs to elicit a positive response, especially from Republicans. (Remember Benghazi and the Republican call for better embassy security? And what about the Republican desire to reduce spending?) But condemnation is the Republican message of choice--no matter whether facts support it or not.
And one fact that Republicans have chosen to ignore completely: The building to which the Embassy to the Holy See will be moving was purchased during W's administration for the express purpose of moving the embassy there in the future. So maybe Republicans should be outraged at themselves.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
Dear Supreme Court: Please Do Not Screw This Up
The Supreme Court will hear the case pitting Holly Hobby against the Affordable Care Act. The conservative Christian owners of Holly Hobby are fighting the ACA's requirement that all health care plans include contraception coverage.
what eye thynk: Basically, Holly Hobby is arguing that Mitt Romney was right in 2012 when he said "corporations are people too, my friend". HH wants the Court to grant it corporate "personhood" and with it all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including free speech.
It is not clear what happens to my right of free speech if this happens. Will my personhood be able to sue my employer's personhood in an attempt to force my beliefs on him? Or if my employer belongs to a sect that believes in prayer over medical care, can he deny my right to see a doctor at all? It's a silly argument, I know; but the thought that the Supreme Court might grant my employer the right to dictate what goes on in a space as personal as my doctor's office or as private as my bedroom would have been thought more than silly a short time ago.
And HH is not only arguing that corporations can have religious beliefs. They are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to dictate their own minutiae of religious sanctions.
HH wants to decide what types of birth control earn the "Holly Hobby Bible Seal of Approval" and what types are put on a forbidden list. HH says they are willing to offer coverage for condoms, diaphragms, sponges, some pills and sterilization surgery. They would not pay for IUDs or morning after type pills. Can HH show me where in the Bible it says diaphragms = good, IUDs = bad?
After the mess the Supreme Court made of political campaign funding with their Citizens United ruling, I can only hope they think long and hard about the ramifications of granting personhood status on any business--a status that would introduce a corporate voice into employees' family planning. Dear Supreme Court: Please, do not screw this up.
what eye thynk: Basically, Holly Hobby is arguing that Mitt Romney was right in 2012 when he said "corporations are people too, my friend". HH wants the Court to grant it corporate "personhood" and with it all the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including free speech.
It is not clear what happens to my right of free speech if this happens. Will my personhood be able to sue my employer's personhood in an attempt to force my beliefs on him? Or if my employer belongs to a sect that believes in prayer over medical care, can he deny my right to see a doctor at all? It's a silly argument, I know; but the thought that the Supreme Court might grant my employer the right to dictate what goes on in a space as personal as my doctor's office or as private as my bedroom would have been thought more than silly a short time ago.
And HH is not only arguing that corporations can have religious beliefs. They are asking the Supreme Court to allow them to dictate their own minutiae of religious sanctions.
HH wants to decide what types of birth control earn the "Holly Hobby Bible Seal of Approval" and what types are put on a forbidden list. HH says they are willing to offer coverage for condoms, diaphragms, sponges, some pills and sterilization surgery. They would not pay for IUDs or morning after type pills. Can HH show me where in the Bible it says diaphragms = good, IUDs = bad?
After the mess the Supreme Court made of political campaign funding with their Citizens United ruling, I can only hope they think long and hard about the ramifications of granting personhood status on any business--a status that would introduce a corporate voice into employees' family planning. Dear Supreme Court: Please, do not screw this up.
Friday, November 29, 2013
John Boehner's Sous Chef Failure
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took another shot at President Obama and the Affordable Care Act this week after hearing that small business' access to the federal ACA website will be delayed for a year. Small business owners were told that they should use insurance brokers to purchase health insurance for their employees instead. "The President bit off more than he can chew with this new health care law, and small businesses are now forced to bear the consequences."
what eye thynk: I have just one question for Mr. Boehner: What did you expect to happen?
You and your Republican buddies have spent two years trying to repeal the law. You have done everything in your power to stand in the way of its implementation, including refusing to budget money for ACA administration costs and website design. Nobody really believes your stance of indignation and disappointment with the law's current problems. In light of your failure to overturn the law completely, the current bugs are everything you could have hoped for.
Did I want the ACA to be ready for prime time last month? Of course. But this is not the first big government program to face bumps in its roll out road--remember W's Medicare Plan D problems at the beginning of 2006? And that program did not have to contend with opposite party sabotage before its debut.
It's not so much that the President bit off more than he can chew. It's more like he created a menu and for two years Republicans have refused to turn on the oven. Dinner will be ready eventually. Until then, do us all a favor and stay out of the kitchen.
what eye thynk: I have just one question for Mr. Boehner: What did you expect to happen?
You and your Republican buddies have spent two years trying to repeal the law. You have done everything in your power to stand in the way of its implementation, including refusing to budget money for ACA administration costs and website design. Nobody really believes your stance of indignation and disappointment with the law's current problems. In light of your failure to overturn the law completely, the current bugs are everything you could have hoped for.
Did I want the ACA to be ready for prime time last month? Of course. But this is not the first big government program to face bumps in its roll out road--remember W's Medicare Plan D problems at the beginning of 2006? And that program did not have to contend with opposite party sabotage before its debut.
It's not so much that the President bit off more than he can chew. It's more like he created a menu and for two years Republicans have refused to turn on the oven. Dinner will be ready eventually. Until then, do us all a favor and stay out of the kitchen.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Mitch McConnell's Early Senate Campaign Looking a Little Rough Around the Edges
Mitch McConnell is facing a tough fight to keep his Senate seat. In an attempt to look more conservative, he hired Jesse Benton, who was Rand Paul's campaign chairman, to run his campaign. Mr. Benton was then caught on tape saying he was "holding his nose" to work for Mitch McConnell until he could begin working on Mr. Paul's presidential bid. Not a good start.
Mitch's early campaign strategy seems to be two part: 1. to keep the Tea Party vote by continuing to call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and 2. to secure the woman's vote by campaigning on his stellar record on women's rights.
what eye thynk: Neither issue is going very well.
The ACA, or as health care detractors like to call it, "Obamacare", has had a troubled roll out in states where Republican governors chose not to set up their own exchanges. This is a fact. Unfortunately for Mr. McConnell, Kentucky is not one of those states.
Kentucky's Democratic Governor Steve Beshear made sure the residents of his state had all the support they would need when it came time to sign up for health care. Kentucky's state run ACA exchange, named Kynect, is functioning well. There is enough on the ground support to assist people who may be confused by the process, health care navigators are encouraged to help people in any way they can and Kentucky citizens are signing up at a rate that Kynect says indicates they will meet their sign-up goal by the 2014 deadline.
Even more important, people who have signed up are voicing positive opinions about the process and the rates, which makes Mr. McConnell's recent boast at a Kentucky Fancy Farm event that "Just as I predicted, Obamacare is a disaster for America" an indicator of just how tone deaf he is.
When it comes to Mitch's claim that Kentucky needs jobs not more government spending, state researchers responded with a report that indicates the state's Medicaid expansion will add 17,000 new jobs and $15.6 billion to state coffers over the next ten years.
Women's issues have become another big subject in Mr. McConnell's early strategy. Having no real basis to appeal to Kentucky women, Mr. McConnell has decided to just lie about his record in the hope that no one will remember the facts.
A few months ago, his campaign was talking about Mr. McConnell's long-time support for the Violence Against Women Act. The truth is that he co-sponsored a version of the bill back in 1991 that never came up for a vote in the Senate. When the bill was re-written and presented to the Senate in 1994, he was one of 38 Republicans voting against its passage. And he voted against it's renewal in 2012, (when it failed), and again in 2013, (when it passed). That's three "no" votes on an issue he wants Kentucky women to believe he supports.
Once that lie was exposed, his campaign had to look for other women's issues to exploit. Allison Moore, a campaign spokesman, recently brought up fair pay for women with this statement: "As the father of three daughters, fair pay for women is more than a talking point for Senator McConnell. It's something he's worked to achieve his entire career by setting an example for others and promoting thoughtful policies to ensure talent overcomes bias."
Sounds good, until you look at his voting record again. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Mr. McConnell voted against it--twice. The Paycheck Fairness Act? Mitch recorded two negative votes on that bill as well.
I know it's early to say Mitch McConnell's campaign is in trouble; but neither of the two issues he is currently throwing around look like game changers to me.
1. He can continue to fly the Republican Obamacare-Has-Got-to-Go Flag and keep the conservative vote; but then how will the average Kentuckian respond to a message that basically becomes "Please vote for me so I can take away your new health care?" 2. He knows he needs the women's vote; but outright lying is probably not going to be a big selling point with the female voter. By campaigning as though Kentucky women are either too stupid to be aware of or incapable of checking his true record on women's issues is simply insulting. And women don't take well to insults.
Me thinks more work needs to be done.
Mitch's early campaign strategy seems to be two part: 1. to keep the Tea Party vote by continuing to call for the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, and 2. to secure the woman's vote by campaigning on his stellar record on women's rights.
what eye thynk: Neither issue is going very well.
The ACA, or as health care detractors like to call it, "Obamacare", has had a troubled roll out in states where Republican governors chose not to set up their own exchanges. This is a fact. Unfortunately for Mr. McConnell, Kentucky is not one of those states.
Kentucky's Democratic Governor Steve Beshear made sure the residents of his state had all the support they would need when it came time to sign up for health care. Kentucky's state run ACA exchange, named Kynect, is functioning well. There is enough on the ground support to assist people who may be confused by the process, health care navigators are encouraged to help people in any way they can and Kentucky citizens are signing up at a rate that Kynect says indicates they will meet their sign-up goal by the 2014 deadline.
Even more important, people who have signed up are voicing positive opinions about the process and the rates, which makes Mr. McConnell's recent boast at a Kentucky Fancy Farm event that "Just as I predicted, Obamacare is a disaster for America" an indicator of just how tone deaf he is.
When it comes to Mitch's claim that Kentucky needs jobs not more government spending, state researchers responded with a report that indicates the state's Medicaid expansion will add 17,000 new jobs and $15.6 billion to state coffers over the next ten years.
Women's issues have become another big subject in Mr. McConnell's early strategy. Having no real basis to appeal to Kentucky women, Mr. McConnell has decided to just lie about his record in the hope that no one will remember the facts.
A few months ago, his campaign was talking about Mr. McConnell's long-time support for the Violence Against Women Act. The truth is that he co-sponsored a version of the bill back in 1991 that never came up for a vote in the Senate. When the bill was re-written and presented to the Senate in 1994, he was one of 38 Republicans voting against its passage. And he voted against it's renewal in 2012, (when it failed), and again in 2013, (when it passed). That's three "no" votes on an issue he wants Kentucky women to believe he supports.
Once that lie was exposed, his campaign had to look for other women's issues to exploit. Allison Moore, a campaign spokesman, recently brought up fair pay for women with this statement: "As the father of three daughters, fair pay for women is more than a talking point for Senator McConnell. It's something he's worked to achieve his entire career by setting an example for others and promoting thoughtful policies to ensure talent overcomes bias."
Sounds good, until you look at his voting record again. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Mr. McConnell voted against it--twice. The Paycheck Fairness Act? Mitch recorded two negative votes on that bill as well.
I know it's early to say Mitch McConnell's campaign is in trouble; but neither of the two issues he is currently throwing around look like game changers to me.
1. He can continue to fly the Republican Obamacare-Has-Got-to-Go Flag and keep the conservative vote; but then how will the average Kentuckian respond to a message that basically becomes "Please vote for me so I can take away your new health care?" 2. He knows he needs the women's vote; but outright lying is probably not going to be a big selling point with the female voter. By campaigning as though Kentucky women are either too stupid to be aware of or incapable of checking his true record on women's issues is simply insulting. And women don't take well to insults.
Me thinks more work needs to be done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)