Good, we can stop with the pretenses now. The never ending investigations of Hillary Clinton over Benghazi have been an exercise in craven political theater, meant to damage the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. We have this on the word of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the number two House Republican. The likely new Speaker of the House to succeed retiring John Boehner was attempting to curry favor with conservative Republican voters on the Sean Hannity Fox "News" program when he said this:
What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.
If you want to see McCarthy say it in his own words, go here.
So the soon-to-be most powerful figure in the GOP congress admits these interminable hearings are a "strategy to fight and win." Commentator Michael Kinsley once observed that a gaffe is "when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say." McCarthy's "gaffe" has exposed this charade for what it is. There have been 8 investigations of Benghazi up to now, 7 congressional and one independent. All have exonerated Secretary Clinton of any malfeasance or negligence. None has found dereliction of duty or State Department conspiracy in play in the tragic killing of four American personnel there. Yet Secretary Clinton is about to be hauled before yet another one of these hearings Wednesday, October 22. At least now the public will know for sure what this is all about.
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Friday, September 25, 2015
Pope Francis's Address to Congress
Pope Francis's address to Congress yesterday was unprecedented for a couple of reasons. To start with, he is the first pope to do so. But perhaps more importantly, he spoke to the legislators on terms they seldom hear anymore, the plane of moral necessity. And while liberals had quite a bit more to cheer than conservatives in Francis's speech, there were several cases that struck a positive chord with both, and a couple of instances where conservatives liked what they were hearing more than liberals did. The upshot is that the Pope, though polite and pastoral rather than scolding, did not pull his punches. His approach is not liberal or conservative in U.S. political terms; it is humanitarian in Catholic terms.
The Pope paid his respects to politics as a profession that can accomplish much good, in the proper light. He encouraged a politics whose purpose is "to build the common good, a community that sacrifices particular interests for the common good."
Francis grounded his speech in the examples of the lives of four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. From Lincoln he invoked the principle of liberty, "a new birth of freedom that requires a love of the common good." The Pontiff counseled "suspicion against any kind of fundamentalism" that draws simplistic good versus evil or righteous versus sinners pictures and that promotes polarization. Stop with the intransigence and get things done for the people, seemed to be his message here.
The Pope brought up Martin Luther King to highlight equal rights and dignity for all. He here devoted most of his message to inveighing against fear and rejection of immigrants, "I say this to you as the son of immigrants, as I know many of you are the descendants of immigrants." He grounded his point in the Golden Rule. He said, "When the stranger appears to us we must not repeat the errors of the past." Francis's frequent references to Dr. King's "dream" made it clear he supported the concept of the American Dream Act. There was not a lot for conservative immigrant-bashers to like in this segment.
The next passage was based on the example of Dorothy Day, founder of the "Catholic Worker" publication and a lifelong fighter for the poor and oppressed. Francis no doubt dismayed conservatives when he explicitly brought up the inequitable "distribution of wealth." He called for an economy that is "modern and sustainable," and specified "The common good includes the Earth." He referred to his recent encyclical on environmentalism, saying, "The environment concerns us all, and environmental deterioration is caused by human activities. We can make a difference, I am sure. Now is the time for courageous action. America can make a vital contribution in the years ahead." At this the Democrats enthusiastically rose while the Republicans sat on their hands.
Finally, Pope Francis turned to the example of Thomas Merton, a 20th century monk famous for his spirituality. Here the Pope advocated sincere dialogue in the spirit of peace and brotherhood to address all human problems. He specifically brought up the arms trade, indirectly chastising America's role in perpetuating wars that shed "innocent blood." He got applause from conservatives by mentioning his commitment to the value of human life "at all stages of development," but they then sat down in confusion when he immediately pivoted to calling for the worldwide end to the death penalty. He spoke of "threats to the family," including the "redefinition of relations," a likely dig at the recent U.S. acceptance of same-sex marriage. But he then broadened the appeal by speaking for "the richness of family life" and calling for the legislators to do all they could for the "vulnerable young" who have "possibilities, but may be trapped in violence, abuse and despair." This call was rousingly supported by all.
The partisan divide was much more muted than in a normal congressional session, or a State of the Union message, but was present nonetheless. Francis skillfully negotiated the shoals while still getting his message out. And while I would say the lion's share of his message supported the liberal approach to solving human problems, he gave everyone a great deal to think about, regardless of their ideological persuasion.
The Pope paid his respects to politics as a profession that can accomplish much good, in the proper light. He encouraged a politics whose purpose is "to build the common good, a community that sacrifices particular interests for the common good."
Francis grounded his speech in the examples of the lives of four great Americans: Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton. From Lincoln he invoked the principle of liberty, "a new birth of freedom that requires a love of the common good." The Pontiff counseled "suspicion against any kind of fundamentalism" that draws simplistic good versus evil or righteous versus sinners pictures and that promotes polarization. Stop with the intransigence and get things done for the people, seemed to be his message here.
The Pope brought up Martin Luther King to highlight equal rights and dignity for all. He here devoted most of his message to inveighing against fear and rejection of immigrants, "I say this to you as the son of immigrants, as I know many of you are the descendants of immigrants." He grounded his point in the Golden Rule. He said, "When the stranger appears to us we must not repeat the errors of the past." Francis's frequent references to Dr. King's "dream" made it clear he supported the concept of the American Dream Act. There was not a lot for conservative immigrant-bashers to like in this segment.
The next passage was based on the example of Dorothy Day, founder of the "Catholic Worker" publication and a lifelong fighter for the poor and oppressed. Francis no doubt dismayed conservatives when he explicitly brought up the inequitable "distribution of wealth." He called for an economy that is "modern and sustainable," and specified "The common good includes the Earth." He referred to his recent encyclical on environmentalism, saying, "The environment concerns us all, and environmental deterioration is caused by human activities. We can make a difference, I am sure. Now is the time for courageous action. America can make a vital contribution in the years ahead." At this the Democrats enthusiastically rose while the Republicans sat on their hands.
Finally, Pope Francis turned to the example of Thomas Merton, a 20th century monk famous for his spirituality. Here the Pope advocated sincere dialogue in the spirit of peace and brotherhood to address all human problems. He specifically brought up the arms trade, indirectly chastising America's role in perpetuating wars that shed "innocent blood." He got applause from conservatives by mentioning his commitment to the value of human life "at all stages of development," but they then sat down in confusion when he immediately pivoted to calling for the worldwide end to the death penalty. He spoke of "threats to the family," including the "redefinition of relations," a likely dig at the recent U.S. acceptance of same-sex marriage. But he then broadened the appeal by speaking for "the richness of family life" and calling for the legislators to do all they could for the "vulnerable young" who have "possibilities, but may be trapped in violence, abuse and despair." This call was rousingly supported by all.
The partisan divide was much more muted than in a normal congressional session, or a State of the Union message, but was present nonetheless. Francis skillfully negotiated the shoals while still getting his message out. And while I would say the lion's share of his message supported the liberal approach to solving human problems, he gave everyone a great deal to think about, regardless of their ideological persuasion.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Second Republican Debate
The Republican debate on CNN this week was a revelation. Everyone there seemed to have a clear idea of what they're against, but no one appeared to have any kind of coherent picture of what they are for or how they would meet the needs of the American people.
They all hated Obamacare and said would repeal it right away. No one offered an idea of how to improve the health care system or meet the needs of those without insurance.
They all said they would defund Planned Parenthood. None said anything about how they would meet the health needs of women in America without it.
They all said they were against ISIS and would destroy it. No one mentioned that for the US to do that would require an American invasion of Syria, or if that was what they were proposing. (To his credit, at least in terms of honesty, Lindsay Graham actually did admit to having exactly that in mind in the preliminary debate among the four candidates with the weakest support.)
They all said they were against the nuclear inspection deal with Iran. All but two said they would simply tear it up, leaving no inspection protocol in effect at all, and in effect leaving no other option but war. Rand Paul and John Kasich were the only ones to suggest working within the treaty with our allies.
All said they were for harsh crackdowns on "illegal aliens," with Marco Rubio tacitly repudiating his own Senate legislation on comprehensive immigration. No one offered much in the way of solutions other than building more and bigger walls.
Most of all, they all fell all over themselves attacking Hillary Clinton, and each other. There was a cringeworthy back and forth between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump over Bush's allegations that Trump showed up at Bush's Florida office when he was governor with an offer of campaign cash, asking for Bush's help in approving a casino project. Trump's vehement 'no I didn'ts' and Bush's insistent 'yes you dids' reached a new bottom. Apparently lost on everyone was the certainty that at least one of them was lying with pants-on-fire intensity.
All in all, there was little to inspire confidence in the vision of these candidates. Several of them painfully appeared to lack even the basic personal maturity to be considered for such a position of responsibility. Entertainment value can only take you so far.
They all hated Obamacare and said would repeal it right away. No one offered an idea of how to improve the health care system or meet the needs of those without insurance.
They all said they would defund Planned Parenthood. None said anything about how they would meet the health needs of women in America without it.
They all said they were against ISIS and would destroy it. No one mentioned that for the US to do that would require an American invasion of Syria, or if that was what they were proposing. (To his credit, at least in terms of honesty, Lindsay Graham actually did admit to having exactly that in mind in the preliminary debate among the four candidates with the weakest support.)
They all said they were against the nuclear inspection deal with Iran. All but two said they would simply tear it up, leaving no inspection protocol in effect at all, and in effect leaving no other option but war. Rand Paul and John Kasich were the only ones to suggest working within the treaty with our allies.
All said they were for harsh crackdowns on "illegal aliens," with Marco Rubio tacitly repudiating his own Senate legislation on comprehensive immigration. No one offered much in the way of solutions other than building more and bigger walls.
Most of all, they all fell all over themselves attacking Hillary Clinton, and each other. There was a cringeworthy back and forth between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump over Bush's allegations that Trump showed up at Bush's Florida office when he was governor with an offer of campaign cash, asking for Bush's help in approving a casino project. Trump's vehement 'no I didn'ts' and Bush's insistent 'yes you dids' reached a new bottom. Apparently lost on everyone was the certainty that at least one of them was lying with pants-on-fire intensity.
All in all, there was little to inspire confidence in the vision of these candidates. Several of them painfully appeared to lack even the basic personal maturity to be considered for such a position of responsibility. Entertainment value can only take you so far.
Friday, September 11, 2015
Positive New Jobs Numbers
The latest jobs numbers came out last Friday from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They show a preliminary job creation number of 173,000 new private-sector non-farm American jobs were created in August. When final statistics come in that number may be adjusted up or down somewhat, but it's a good snapshot.The most important thing it shows is that positive news keeps coming in. We are currently on the longest roll of consecutive months of net positive job creation since statistics have been kept for the nation.
The other thing the stats do is underscore an important but little-known fact about American employment statistics: the strong superiority of these numbers when a Democrat occupies the White House. I went back to the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, ran the numbers, and here is what I found: There have been 5 Republicans in office for a total of 28 years. During that time there was a net gain of 857,000 jobs a year during Republican administrations. There have also been 5 Democrats as president from JFK to now, for a total of a little less than 27 years. During that time a net average of 1,844,000 jobs have been added every year during Democratic administrations.
The numbers are stark and remarkable. More than twice as many jobs per year have been created under Democrats as under Republicans, almost a million a year more! Why Democrats don't trumpet this to the skies every election cycle is beyond my understanding. Maybe they ought to start doing that.
The other thing the stats do is underscore an important but little-known fact about American employment statistics: the strong superiority of these numbers when a Democrat occupies the White House. I went back to the inauguration of John F. Kennedy in 1961, ran the numbers, and here is what I found: There have been 5 Republicans in office for a total of 28 years. During that time there was a net gain of 857,000 jobs a year during Republican administrations. There have also been 5 Democrats as president from JFK to now, for a total of a little less than 27 years. During that time a net average of 1,844,000 jobs have been added every year during Democratic administrations.
The numbers are stark and remarkable. More than twice as many jobs per year have been created under Democrats as under Republicans, almost a million a year more! Why Democrats don't trumpet this to the skies every election cycle is beyond my understanding. Maybe they ought to start doing that.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
30,000 Milestone Passed!
Dear Readers:
I started this blog in December, 2007. This week, 655 posts and eight years and nine months later, Brave Gnu Whirled passed its thirty thousandth page view! Readership is growing. It took
495 posts and four years and seven months to get to the first ten thousand, 90 posts and one year and five months to record the second ten thousand, and 70 posts and 1 year and seven months to surpass the third ten thousand! I sincerely thank everyone who subscribes or just checks in and looks around, either regularly or just every once in awhile.
Whether it's a comment on politics, society, the news, or a personal item, this blog is an outlet for me. I hope it's also a diversion for you. Whether it informs, amuses or exasperates, my object is that it always at least interests.
After the United States, the next most popular areas of readership lately have been Germany, France, Russia, Ukraine and Japan. So, thank you, merci, spasiba, gracias, danke, Дякую and arigato to everyone!
I started this blog in December, 2007. This week, 655 posts and eight years and nine months later, Brave Gnu Whirled passed its thirty thousandth page view! Readership is growing. It took
495 posts and four years and seven months to get to the first ten thousand, 90 posts and one year and five months to record the second ten thousand, and 70 posts and 1 year and seven months to surpass the third ten thousand! I sincerely thank everyone who subscribes or just checks in and looks around, either regularly or just every once in awhile.
Whether it's a comment on politics, society, the news, or a personal item, this blog is an outlet for me. I hope it's also a diversion for you. Whether it informs, amuses or exasperates, my object is that it always at least interests.
After the United States, the next most popular areas of readership lately have been Germany, France, Russia, Ukraine and Japan. So, thank you, merci, spasiba, gracias, danke, Дякую and arigato to everyone!
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Kentucky County Clerk's Refusal to Obey the Law of the Land
Thought for the day, from Lambda Legal Director Jon Davidson:
"I have to wonder: just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?"
"I have to wonder: just how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal to issue marriage licenses based on her religious objection to same-sex couples marrying would support a Quaker government official who refused to issue them gun permits based on a religious commitment to pacifism?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)