Scarabus

Crawling toward the sunlight

Archive for July, 2011

Is Glenn Beck loony? or …

Sunday, July 31st, 2011

Is Glenn Beck loony? Or is he a conscienceless sociopath?

 

First example, in this first example he identifies with Parson Weems, insisting that George Washington literally never told a lie.

 

 

 

Second example, he insists adamantly that the oil companies do not receive subsidies. This is something both the oil companies and congressional Republicans acknowledge. Beck asks why, if it’s true, the President doesn’t publish it in the newspapers. The answer is that he doesn’t have to. It’s already been published in the newspapers and elsewhere time after time.

 

NYT Business section:

As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies

But an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.

According to the most recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, released in 2005, capital investments like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, significantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtually any other industry.

And for many small and midsize oil companies, the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by var-ious credits. These companies’ returns on those investments are often higher after taxes than before.

This from ABC News:

As top executives from the five most profitable oil companies testified on Capitol Hill today, House Speaker John Boehner said that a Senate bill to scrap tax subsidies for Big Oil would not lower gasoline prices at all, but maintained that it is an idea worthy of consideration in the House as part of a broader examination of the corporate tax code later this year.

Bill O’Reilly (in pompous, bombastic manner) says that no Christian would ever commit mass murder

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

Billo, at least in this instance, is a perfect emblem of right-wing logic. (I’ve heard the same logic from Bill Donohue on the RC side, and from countless others on the evangelical Protestant side.) Here’s what he said: “No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.”

 

wpid-bill_o_cropped-1-2011-07-30-18-37.jpg

 

Get it? By definition, a Christian could never do X or Y. You have evidence that a person who considers and identifies herself or himself as a Christian, and is identified by others as a Christian, has done it? Then clearly they all are mistaken, and that person actually isn’t a true Christian. You challenge that? Good luck! Dishonest, disingenuous, fanatical conservatives like Billo get to define what counts as observable evidence of spiritual belief, and get to judge whether evidence you offer truly qualifies.

Nice, right? Guys like Billious Billo get to define the rules and criteria; determine which evidence will be considered; and, acting as judge, pronounce the results of a game they themselves rigged.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

Anyhow, here’s a guy who identified himself as a Roman Catholic (the Roman is not gratuitous: given where he lived, this guy might very well have been an Orthodox Catholic). He built at least one Catholic church. He fought against Muslim aggression. Oh, his name? Vlad Tepes, a.k.a. Vlad the Impaler, perhaps the most important historical figure after whom Bram Stoker modeled his fictional character Dracula.

 

wpid-vladCropped-1-2011-07-30-18-37.jpg

 

So how did this prince who shared your own variety of Christianity behave, Billo?

 

If you ask a Snagov or Comana monk about Vlad the Impaler they proudly tell you Vlad Dracula’s religion was orthodox but he was also a great Christian because he fought against Ottomans invasion.

 

wpid-impale2-2011-07-30-18-37.jpg

 

“In the year 1460, on the morning of St Bartholomew’s Day, Dracula came through the forest with his servants and had all the Wallachians of both sexes tracked down, as people say outside the village of Humilasch [Amlas], and he was able to bring so many together that he let them get piled up in a bunch and he cut them up like cabbage with swords, sabers and knives; as for their chaplain and the others whom he did not kill there, he led them back home and had them impaled. And he had the village completely burned up with their goods and it is said that there were more than 30,000 men.”

Bill Maher mocks all religions. I don’t. Violence isn’t restricted to any one religion or race or nationality. (What was the religion of the guy who — encouraged by Bill O’Reilly’s violent rhetoric, by the way — murdered Dr. George Tiller while the latter was serving an usher in his Christian church? What was the religion of the guy who shot and killed Ghandi? Hint: The last was neither Christian nor Muslim.) Violence and terrorism are promoted by political, racist, xenophobic, alienated, hating and fearing in equal measure sects or individual ideologues.

Was the Norway murderer a “Christian” terrorist?

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

In this episode, Bill Maher asks why the media call the Fort Hood assassin a “Muslim terrorist,” but don’t in return call the Norway assassin a “Christian terrorist.” The shrill blonde in a red dress responds by claiming the Fort Hood guy was part of an integrated worldwide conspiracy of murderous Muslims. Maher responds by talking over her and insisting that, no, the Fort Hood guy was not part of a worldwide conspiracy. Not very helpful, Bill!

That’s part — just part — of what’s destructive at worst and merely disappointing at best about the fact that so many Americans get so much of their information and so many of their ideas from bobble-head television shows. First, this was the closest the show got to addressing the particular question of unified worldwide Christian and/or Muslim conspiracy, meaningfully or not. Second, the only way the matter was addressed was “he said/she said.” That’s less than helpful.

These are complicated issues. They need a format like what Bill Moyers used to do, and Amy Goodman still does. As a matter of fact, AG’s DemocracyNow addressed Breivik’s Christian connection just yesterday or the day before. Anyhow, here’s the episode.

 

Don’t confuse Rep. Tim Ryan with Paul Ryan

Saturday, July 30th, 2011

Good stuff! (h/t Crooks & Liars)

 

 

Is America burning? Then you know who’s to blame!

Friday, July 29th, 2011

Erratum! [Is that right, Lady Jane?] My wife pointed out my having omitted the letter “f”. Correcting the omission would be a nuisance, so I’ll let it stand.

wpid-burn-baby-2-2011-07-29-19-58.jpg

Covert Media Consolidation

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

Check the interactive map to see what’s happening in your state.

 

 

False equivalencies in among politicians and the media

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

To make a false equivalency is to insist that two things are equal in some respect. An political bobble-head shows, only two sides can be represented. The assumption is that there never can be more than two sides to an issue, and furthermore opposing positions will always have equal claim to validity. The assumption is that two “experts” will be equally qualified and worth taking seriously. For example, on Fox News their favorite expert on global warming was a local TV weather man!

The pioneer in articulating this destructive nonsense is a guy named Richard Viguerie, who is still active in politics. Later it was seized upon and implemented on a massive scale by Roger Ailes. And as might have been expected, it made its way to every cable and broadcast network. Here are some quotes from the transcript of Viguerie’s appearance on Bill Moyers’ former show Now, broadcast in December 2004.

VIGUERIE: That’s what journalism is. It’s just all opinion. Just opinion.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

VIGUERIE: [W]e’re not gonna play, Bill, by the liberal establishment’s rules. They say, “This is acceptable and this is not acceptable.”

[Note the assumption there are only two “establishments” and that neither has to play by the other’s rules. There is no decorum on which we agree as a civil society. There can be only continual ideological civil war, no equivalent of the Geneva Conventions, no common rules at all. Welcome to Fox News and the 112th Congress.]

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

VIGUERIE: Well, that’s a matter of opinion as to whether there was a basis for this story or that story.

 

wpid-scientist-clown-4-2011-07-28-14-40.jpg

wpid-scientist-clown-2small-2011-07-28-14-40.jpg

Eagerness for the return of oligarchy.

Thursday, July 28th, 2011

The following is part of a comment I made in response to a post on Thom Hartmann’s blog. The title of Thom’s post is “The Real Leaders of the Republican party – Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist – are quite happy.” The question I answer isn’t actually expressed in this post, but in the email newsletter from which I followed a link: “Will they still be happy next week? Tell us here.”

 

wpid-Hartmann1-2011-07-27-23-29.jpg

 

[I]n response to the question you asked…, I don’t have a clue as to whether Limbaugh and Norquist will be happy next week. However, I’m pretty sure that I and other progressives will be anything but happy. None of the players – including the President – seems interested in actually restoring the American economy. The struggle seems focused exclusively on how much or how little further damage to inflict.

Strange to see how eager how many Americans are to release the robber barons from regulation and civic responsibility; to invite them once again to grind the poor, the working class, and the middle class (as much of it as still exists) beneath their expensively shod heels.

I’m reminded of the line from The American President: “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight.” Seems as if too few of us want it badly enough. Too few of us are willing to fight for democracy. Too many of us are eager to shed the weight of responsibility and welcome back the oligarchy.

 

wpid-combinations2-2011-07-27-23-29.gif

I’ve been out of touch, but I can’t let this go by.

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

I learned about this from ThinkProgress:

Violent Film Motivates House GOP As They Push Us Toward Default

In order to whip up support for the Boehner plan, the Washington Post reported that yesterday the GOP leadership played a clip from the Ben Affleck flick The Town. Here are the details, via ThinkProgress’ Judd Legum:

 

Ben Affleck: I need your help. I can’t tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. And we’re going to hurt some people.
Jeremy Renner: Whose car are we going to take?

According to the Washington Post, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) replied, “I’m ready to drive the car.”
In the movie, the characters then put on hockey masks and bludgeon two men with sticks, then shoot one man in the leg.

Quick Condemnation

The controversy lit up twitter last night, and today Democratic leaders were quick to denounce the showing of the clip — and the message behind it.

 

Allen West again. He reminds me more and more of G. Gordon Liddy. You voters south of here need to replace him in the House with someone more sane and with greater moral maturity.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

One thing for sure, they can no longer pretend that they’re doing this to help the nation or its citizens. They’re doing it strictly in order to hurt someone. A lot of someones. All over the world.

[Whom am I trying to kid? This will have no effect whatsoever on their pretense.]

Do you practice discrimination? Are you rich enough for Republicans to love you?

Wednesday, July 27th, 2011

wpid-TiffanyComp-1-2011-07-27-17-12.jpg