Papal high jinks
Jon Carroll
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
The cluelessness of the Roman Catholic Church is jaw-dropping. Finally the pope gets around to issuing an edict making it somewhat easier for the church to speedily discipline sexually abusive priests - the sort of modified limited hangout that Richard Nixon would enjoy - and he twins that edict with another saying that the ordination of women is an abomination and may be as bad as sexually abusing a choirboy.
These gray old men in their gray old buildings are really afraid of women - or such is my conclusion. They are as nervous as church mice in the presence of free-floating estrogen. Why, let a woman inside the gates, and the next thing you know they'll be pushing for the strenuous prosecution of child molesters in civil courts. I quote from the reporting of Rachel Donadio of the New York Times, who has been covering this story for quite a while:
"But what astonished many Catholics was the inclusion of the attempt to ordain women in a list of the 'more grave delicts,' or offenses, which included pedophilia, as well as heresy, apostasy and schism. The issue, some critics said, was less the ordination of women, which is not discussed seriously inside the church hierarchy, but the Vatican's suggestion that pedophilia is a comparable crime in a document billed [as] a response to the sexual abuse crisis.
" 'It is very irritating that they put the increased severity in punishment for abuse and women's ordination at the same level,' " said Christian Weisner, the spokesman for 'We Are Church,' a liberal Catholic reform movement founded in 1996 in response to a high-profile sexual abuse case in Austria. 'It tells us that the church still understands itself as an environment dominated by men.' "
American Catholics have long supported the ordination of women. The latest poll has the number at 59 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed. According to Donadio, "A top official in the American Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, called the document a 'welcome statement' even as he took pains to praise the role of women in the church. 'The church's gratitude to women cannot be stated strongly enough,' he said at a news conference in Washington. 'Women offer unique insight, creative abilities and unstinting generosity at the very heart of the Catholic Church.'
"Still, the archbishop added, 'The Catholic Church through its long and constant teaching holds that ordination has been, from the beginning, reserved to men, a fact which cannot be changed despite changing times.' "
See what a useful template that sentence could be. "Long and constant teaching holds that slavery is reserved for dark people, a fact that cannot be changed despite changing times." Or, just to give everyone an equal shot, "Long and constant teaching holds that the stoning of women for adultery is a just and appropriate act, a fact that cannot be changed despite changing times." It's the worst kind of arrant nonsense, and it is pathetic to see the church fall back on the "it is because it was" line of defense.
You'll pardon me, but it all seems to be about power. It seems to be about the willingness of the church to accept any kind of injustice as long as it retains power. God knows how long the systematic abuse of children by priests would have gone on had not a dozen or more courageous whistle-blowers, both clerical and not, kept telling the truth and shaming the devil.
The devil in this production is played by ... you know.
And just by the way, did you notice the creepy paternalistic tone that seeped into Wuerl's tribute to women? Women have "insight" (as opposed to intelligence), they have "creative abilities" (as opposed to, say, managerial skills), they have "unstinting generosity" (as opposed to decisiveness or self-discipline). They are the cutest little things and we really do honor them. Look at the Virgin. We honor her like crazy. Really, no, like crazy.
Meantime, this new document continues the centurylong debate between church and state. The state claims the right to criminally prosecute child abusers, and the Vatican still claims the right to use the disciplinary arms of the church to deal with the problem. Alas, it seems too late for that to be a serious option - the church had decades to clean its own house, and all it did was send the offending priests to New Mexico for a spell.
The Roman Catholic Church, with this new edict, is just buying itself more trouble down the road. Does it not know that, or does it not care?
Come here, l'il darlin', and let me tell you about the latest edict. Use your insight.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EFI3S.DTL
Today's Jon Carroll column
-
JLT
- Old School!
- Location: Sacramento CA
- Status: Offline
As a person raised in the Roman Catholic faith, I am amazed at the Church's refusal to see reality, and at its insistence that you can't be a full member of the clergy without the proper plumbing.static wrote:Finally the pope gets around to issuing an edict making it somewhat easier for the church to speedily discipline sexually abusive priests - the sort of modified limited hangout that Richard Nixon would enjoy - and he twins that edict with another saying that the ordination of women is an abomination and may be as bad as sexually abusing a choirboy.
I remember being in a discussion with a Roman Catholic priest a few years back. After I mentioned that I'd been raised a Catholic, he asked me point-blank: "What would it take to get you back into the Church?"
I said, "Well, it would really help if I could go into a confessional and say 'Bless me, Mother, for I have sinned...'"
He looked at me for a moment, nodded his head, and dropped the subject. The message: it ain't gonna happen.
-- JLT
Sacramento CA
Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"
Sacramento CA
Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
Turn Signal Madness
I know you've seen one. They're easy to recognize. They look more or less like a stick with a handle. Simple in design, they are also exquisitely easy to operate. If the stick is on the left of the steering column, move the stick up - a flick of the finger can do it, although using the palm of the hand is even easier - and the blinking light at the right side of the car is activated. Move the stick down - two fingers is the preferred method - and the light at the left rear of the car starts blinking. (If the stick is on the right-hand side of the steering column, reverse this process.)
For those of you not familiar with the semiotics of the automobile, the blinking light on the left side means you plan to turn left; the blinking light on the right-hand side, right.
I provide this introduction only because so many people seem to have missed that bit in the driver handbook. Maybe it should be in bigger letters. But these "turn signals," as they are often called because they signal a turn, have fallen into increasing disfavor among the driving classes. Perhaps it's just resistance to the government telling us how to drive our cars.
"What the hell," the thinking may go, "I know which way I'm turning. What business is it of anybody else's?" Well, other people need to know so they can more readily anticipate your moves. Particularly if your speed is high and your moves are erratic. You know whom I mean.
Sometimes ... sometimes I am driving my car and someone cuts in front of me, turn signal strangely dark, and goes on to cut in front of two more lanes of drivers. Well, sometimes I wish I had the auto equivalent of the dart gun that big-game veterinarians use to quiet their patients so they can apply needed medication and/or set a fractured bone.
The offending car would bumble and grumble to a stop 200 yards down the road, and only a call to the number listed on the dart would bring a repair person to inject the mystery chemical that would allow the car to start. The repair person also would attach a flag to the roof of the car that says, "I didn't use my turn signal. I am socially inept. This flag courtesy of the Citizen Turn Signal Patrol."
OK, that's just a pipe dream - unless it isn't. I'd be darn careful if I were you.
Oh, but some may ask, why do I need a turn signal? I am in the right lane of the freeway and I plan to take the next off-ramp. I slow and swing onto the off-ramp. I don't signal. Where's the harm?
Well, through the mysteries of social dynamics that render the freeways far safer than they ought to be, drivers, without consulting one another, set the prima facie speed limit for each lane. Sometimes a daredevil will try to tailgate and swerve, tailgate and swerve, to upset this order, but we'll have a dart for him very soon. I can't say too much about it, although it does involve a permanent dye.
In any event, if I am in the right lane going the correct speed, I want to know whether it is somebody's plan to slow down. A simple turn signal near an off-ramp will clear up the confusion and make for a sane trip for everyone.
(Some of you might say: But surely the act of slowing is enough. Why use an artificial electric device? Echoing Sir Edmund Hillary, I reply: because it is there. I mean, what's the big deal? Hillary did not say that last bit.)
But of course the real crushers in turn-signal encounters are left turns. Suppose you are on a quiet suburban street. You are going west and I am going east. There are no stop signs or stoplights. I naturally assume that you will continue going west, because that is the way the world works. But oh no, it is your intention to turn left, yet you fail to signal. And I breeze through the intersection right until I T-bone your car and break those precious 18th century French porcelains you were carrying in the passenger seat.
A part of history lost, because of your failure to signal. Alas, your collarbone: broken, because of the same crash. Oh, it makes one weep at the folly of humankind, does it not?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EHPFA.DTL
I know you've seen one. They're easy to recognize. They look more or less like a stick with a handle. Simple in design, they are also exquisitely easy to operate. If the stick is on the left of the steering column, move the stick up - a flick of the finger can do it, although using the palm of the hand is even easier - and the blinking light at the right side of the car is activated. Move the stick down - two fingers is the preferred method - and the light at the left rear of the car starts blinking. (If the stick is on the right-hand side of the steering column, reverse this process.)
For those of you not familiar with the semiotics of the automobile, the blinking light on the left side means you plan to turn left; the blinking light on the right-hand side, right.
I provide this introduction only because so many people seem to have missed that bit in the driver handbook. Maybe it should be in bigger letters. But these "turn signals," as they are often called because they signal a turn, have fallen into increasing disfavor among the driving classes. Perhaps it's just resistance to the government telling us how to drive our cars.
"What the hell," the thinking may go, "I know which way I'm turning. What business is it of anybody else's?" Well, other people need to know so they can more readily anticipate your moves. Particularly if your speed is high and your moves are erratic. You know whom I mean.
Sometimes ... sometimes I am driving my car and someone cuts in front of me, turn signal strangely dark, and goes on to cut in front of two more lanes of drivers. Well, sometimes I wish I had the auto equivalent of the dart gun that big-game veterinarians use to quiet their patients so they can apply needed medication and/or set a fractured bone.
The offending car would bumble and grumble to a stop 200 yards down the road, and only a call to the number listed on the dart would bring a repair person to inject the mystery chemical that would allow the car to start. The repair person also would attach a flag to the roof of the car that says, "I didn't use my turn signal. I am socially inept. This flag courtesy of the Citizen Turn Signal Patrol."
OK, that's just a pipe dream - unless it isn't. I'd be darn careful if I were you.
Oh, but some may ask, why do I need a turn signal? I am in the right lane of the freeway and I plan to take the next off-ramp. I slow and swing onto the off-ramp. I don't signal. Where's the harm?
Well, through the mysteries of social dynamics that render the freeways far safer than they ought to be, drivers, without consulting one another, set the prima facie speed limit for each lane. Sometimes a daredevil will try to tailgate and swerve, tailgate and swerve, to upset this order, but we'll have a dart for him very soon. I can't say too much about it, although it does involve a permanent dye.
In any event, if I am in the right lane going the correct speed, I want to know whether it is somebody's plan to slow down. A simple turn signal near an off-ramp will clear up the confusion and make for a sane trip for everyone.
(Some of you might say: But surely the act of slowing is enough. Why use an artificial electric device? Echoing Sir Edmund Hillary, I reply: because it is there. I mean, what's the big deal? Hillary did not say that last bit.)
But of course the real crushers in turn-signal encounters are left turns. Suppose you are on a quiet suburban street. You are going west and I am going east. There are no stop signs or stoplights. I naturally assume that you will continue going west, because that is the way the world works. But oh no, it is your intention to turn left, yet you fail to signal. And I breeze through the intersection right until I T-bone your car and break those precious 18th century French porcelains you were carrying in the passenger seat.
A part of history lost, because of your failure to signal. Alas, your collarbone: broken, because of the same crash. Oh, it makes one weep at the folly of humankind, does it not?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EHPFA.DTL
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
The Mosque Mess
Jon Carroll
Friday, August 6, 2010
Here's an excerpt from a speech by an American political leader. I'll tell you the context and the speaker afterward:
"The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."
I bet some of you have the context already - it's the plan to build a mosque and community center near ground zero. The speaker is Republican-turned-independent Michael Bloomberg, the Jewish mayor of New York who is an ardent advocate of the new building. He's reminding people that we live in a constitutional democracy, something that citizens of the right pay lip service to until it becomes inconvenient.
Well, plus ça change. The Constitution gets batted around a lot, used to justify a multitude of sins, and it's still standing - even if corporations now have the same constitutional rights as people. Bet the framers never saw that one coming.
Anyway: the mosque. The interesting thing is that the top Democrats have not commented on the case at all - not Obama, not Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not even the members of the New York congressional delegation. Freedom of religion - hot potato! Private property rights - not going there! Now, these election-year failures of nerve are common, but it does not make them any less reprehensible.
More from Bloomberg, courtesy of Justin Elliott of Salon.com:
"We've come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
"Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it's sustained by immigrants - by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life. And it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.
"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here - in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance - was hard-won over many years.
"In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center."
It's been a long time, it seems to me, since a Democrat gave a speech that eloquent, that smart and that specific. Good going, Mike.
We have come a long way, baby, although it sometimes seems we're on the return ticket portion of the ride.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EOSP5.DTL
Jon Carroll
Friday, August 6, 2010
Here's an excerpt from a speech by an American political leader. I'll tell you the context and the speaker afterward:
"The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."
I bet some of you have the context already - it's the plan to build a mosque and community center near ground zero. The speaker is Republican-turned-independent Michael Bloomberg, the Jewish mayor of New York who is an ardent advocate of the new building. He's reminding people that we live in a constitutional democracy, something that citizens of the right pay lip service to until it becomes inconvenient.
Well, plus ça change. The Constitution gets batted around a lot, used to justify a multitude of sins, and it's still standing - even if corporations now have the same constitutional rights as people. Bet the framers never saw that one coming.
Anyway: the mosque. The interesting thing is that the top Democrats have not commented on the case at all - not Obama, not Pelosi, not Harry Reid, not even the members of the New York congressional delegation. Freedom of religion - hot potato! Private property rights - not going there! Now, these election-year failures of nerve are common, but it does not make them any less reprehensible.
More from Bloomberg, courtesy of Justin Elliott of Salon.com:
"We've come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that more than 250 years later would greet millions of immigrants in this harbor. And we come here to state as strongly as ever, this is the freest city in the world. That's what makes New York special and different and strong.
"Our doors are open to everyone. Everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it's sustained by immigrants - by people from more than 100 different countries speaking more than 200 different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here or you came here yesterday, you are a New Yorker.
"We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That's life. And it's part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11, 2001.
"On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn't want us to enjoy the freedoms to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams, and to live our own lives. Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that even here - in a city that is rooted in Dutch tolerance - was hard-won over many years.
"In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.
"In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter's on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center."
It's been a long time, it seems to me, since a Democrat gave a speech that eloquent, that smart and that specific. Good going, Mike.
We have come a long way, baby, although it sometimes seems we're on the return ticket portion of the ride.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1EOSP5.DTL
-
Cindy
- IAC Addict!
- Status: Offline
I have been in a fury over this stupid debate. Thanks for posting this, static. I was almost afraid to read it, almost afraid Carroll wasn't going to get it. (i just spent a week with family, watching hysterical Fox news coverage.)
Cindy
Cindy
“No one can tell what goes on in between the person you were and the person you become. No one can chart that blue and lonely section of hell. There are no maps of the change. You just come out the other side.
Or you don't.” ― Stephen King, The Stand
Or you don't.” ― Stephen King, The Stand
-
JLT
- Old School!
- Location: Sacramento CA
- Status: Offline
Bloomberg has it exactly right. What Fox et al do not want to confess is that there was a mosque there on that property before.static wrote: "The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
"Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here."
And in the face of 9/11 we need more cultural centers to educate people on what most Moslems really believe, not fewer.
People say "Oh, but the wounds are still fresh. We need more time to heal." But the healing will truly begin when we set aside intolerance and practice our ideals, and this is a damn good place to start.
-- JLT
Sacramento CA
Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"
Sacramento CA
Present bus: '71 Dormobile Westie "George"
(sometimes towing a '65 Allstate single-wheel trailer)
Former buses: '61 17-window Deluxe "Pink Bus"
'70 Frankenwestie "Blunder Bus"
'71 Frankenwestie "Thunder Bus"
-
turk
- IAC Addict!
- Status: Offline
Have you heard of this guy'splan to open a muslim gay bar across the street?
-
Cindy
- IAC Addict!
- Status: Offline
Does he not realize that many fundamentalist Christians also reject homosexuality and the consumption of alcohol?turk wrote:Have you heard of this guy'splan to open a muslim gay bar across the street?
Cindy
“No one can tell what goes on in between the person you were and the person you become. No one can chart that blue and lonely section of hell. There are no maps of the change. You just come out the other side.
Or you don't.” ― Stephen King, The Stand
Or you don't.” ― Stephen King, The Stand
-
Velokid1
- IAC Addict!
- Status: Offline
So true. Many of them reject everything. They reject their own lives and can't wait to reach the Promised Land.Cindy wrote:Does he not realize that many fundamentalist Christians also reject homosexuality and the consumption of alcohol?turk wrote:Have you heard of this guy'splan to open a muslim gay bar across the street?
Cindy
-
dtrumbo
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Mill Creek, WA
- Status: Offline
I just hope for their sake, it's all it's cracked up to be.Velokid1 wrote:They reject their own lives and can't wait to reach the Promised Land.
- Dick
1970 Transporter. 2015cc, dual Weber IDF 40's
1978 Riviera Camper. Bone stock GE 2.0L F.I.
1979 Super Beetle convertible.
... as it turns out, it was the coil!
1970 Transporter. 2015cc, dual Weber IDF 40's
1978 Riviera Camper. Bone stock GE 2.0L F.I.
1979 Super Beetle convertible.
... as it turns out, it was the coil!
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
Got yer predictions right here
08.27.10
Election day looms once again, with its attendant annoyances and heartbreak. I have gotten very tired over the years of reading and/or listening to pundits who "know" that the race will hinge on this or that issue, that the "seasoned professionals" associated with this campaign will make the difference, that voters will be swayed by this or that last-minute revelation.
Voters vote for all sorts of reasons, many of which they do not reveal to pollsters for various reasons, ranging from sheer prankishness to deep embarrassment. Were there people who voted against Obama because he was black? You bet there were. Did they tell the pollsters that? Nope.
I suspect that all this continuing nonsense about "he's a Muslim" or "he was born in Kenya" is a convenient veil for: "He's black." Racism just isn't as popular as it used to be; it needs to wear disguises.
There are plenty of reasons to be irritated at Obama's performance that have nothing to do with his religion or his birthplace, but those reasons are complex and hard to articulate.
So you don't like the health plan. Why not? Do you understand in specific terms how the health plan will affect you? I don't, and that information might be real useful in forming my opinion. So I don't have an opinion.
Very few people in the opinion business say that.
Are you mad about Obama's spendthrift ways? What would you cut? Education? Wait until your school is in line for a federal grant. Deficit hawks on both the right and the left seem to operate on the same principle, the opposite of NIMBY: IMBYP, "In my backyard, please."
And why is the Defense Department budget sacrosanct? We could do a lot of infrastructure mitzvahs with the money we're spending now on weapons and wars; maybe we should actually do that. If al Qaeda is in fact becoming decentralized, then how does fighting them on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan add to our safety? Can't we be smarter instead of stronger?
I'll get off my hobbyhorse now. Easy there, big fella. I was talking about the imminence of elections, and about the wisdom that surfaces in the last weeks of any campaign about the outcome. And I was going to remind you again about FiveThirtyEight, a statistics-based website that predicts who will win the races based not on conventional wisdom but on conventional numbers.
Nate Silver, the guy behind FiveThirtyEight, has recently become associated with the New York Times, and while we regret this error in judgment, we are assured that he will be producing the same fine copy and predictions.
In explaining his methodology, he gives the following example: "A ... pattern emerged in the final stages of the general election campaign. There were some moments - like immediately after the Republican convention - when Mr. Obama seemed in real danger of losing to Senator John McCain of Arizona.
"But from the time that the financial meltdown became manifest in mid-September, the likely outcome had become quite clear. Mr. Obama held a consistent 6-to-10-point lead in the national polls (historically, few candidates have squandered such a large advantage at the last minute) and also led in most key swing states, giving him an essentially limitless number of permutations by which he might secure 270 votes in the Electoral College.
"The FiveThirtyEight forecasting model, which was based on a rigorous analysis of polling in past presidential elections, gave Mr. Obama an 85 to 90 percent chance of winning throughout this period, and a 98.7 percent chance by Election Day. And yet, on the weekend before the election on the television program 'The McLaughlin Group,' three of the five pundits suggested that the election was 'too close to call,' and one other said she expected a narrow McCain victory."
FiveThirtyEight is the perfect antidote to Beltway blindness, a common affliction in the nation's media. In Washington, which is in many ways a smaller town than San Francisco, the same 20,000 people talk to each other and decide what the country is thinking. Then they tell the country what it is thinking, and the country says "thank you." Or something.
By contrast, FiveThirtyEight looks at all the polls and extrapolates from known biases and methodology. Its whole modus operandi is listening rather than talking. In the great national echo chamber, it serves as a reminder that data work better than hunches. How bad will it be for the Democrats in November? Watch that space.
If these projections are right, Democrats will look at the last two years and use the word "squander."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/carroll/#ixzz0xpEEk0Qe
08.27.10
Election day looms once again, with its attendant annoyances and heartbreak. I have gotten very tired over the years of reading and/or listening to pundits who "know" that the race will hinge on this or that issue, that the "seasoned professionals" associated with this campaign will make the difference, that voters will be swayed by this or that last-minute revelation.
Voters vote for all sorts of reasons, many of which they do not reveal to pollsters for various reasons, ranging from sheer prankishness to deep embarrassment. Were there people who voted against Obama because he was black? You bet there were. Did they tell the pollsters that? Nope.
I suspect that all this continuing nonsense about "he's a Muslim" or "he was born in Kenya" is a convenient veil for: "He's black." Racism just isn't as popular as it used to be; it needs to wear disguises.
There are plenty of reasons to be irritated at Obama's performance that have nothing to do with his religion or his birthplace, but those reasons are complex and hard to articulate.
So you don't like the health plan. Why not? Do you understand in specific terms how the health plan will affect you? I don't, and that information might be real useful in forming my opinion. So I don't have an opinion.
Very few people in the opinion business say that.
Are you mad about Obama's spendthrift ways? What would you cut? Education? Wait until your school is in line for a federal grant. Deficit hawks on both the right and the left seem to operate on the same principle, the opposite of NIMBY: IMBYP, "In my backyard, please."
And why is the Defense Department budget sacrosanct? We could do a lot of infrastructure mitzvahs with the money we're spending now on weapons and wars; maybe we should actually do that. If al Qaeda is in fact becoming decentralized, then how does fighting them on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan add to our safety? Can't we be smarter instead of stronger?
I'll get off my hobbyhorse now. Easy there, big fella. I was talking about the imminence of elections, and about the wisdom that surfaces in the last weeks of any campaign about the outcome. And I was going to remind you again about FiveThirtyEight, a statistics-based website that predicts who will win the races based not on conventional wisdom but on conventional numbers.
Nate Silver, the guy behind FiveThirtyEight, has recently become associated with the New York Times, and while we regret this error in judgment, we are assured that he will be producing the same fine copy and predictions.
In explaining his methodology, he gives the following example: "A ... pattern emerged in the final stages of the general election campaign. There were some moments - like immediately after the Republican convention - when Mr. Obama seemed in real danger of losing to Senator John McCain of Arizona.
"But from the time that the financial meltdown became manifest in mid-September, the likely outcome had become quite clear. Mr. Obama held a consistent 6-to-10-point lead in the national polls (historically, few candidates have squandered such a large advantage at the last minute) and also led in most key swing states, giving him an essentially limitless number of permutations by which he might secure 270 votes in the Electoral College.
"The FiveThirtyEight forecasting model, which was based on a rigorous analysis of polling in past presidential elections, gave Mr. Obama an 85 to 90 percent chance of winning throughout this period, and a 98.7 percent chance by Election Day. And yet, on the weekend before the election on the television program 'The McLaughlin Group,' three of the five pundits suggested that the election was 'too close to call,' and one other said she expected a narrow McCain victory."
FiveThirtyEight is the perfect antidote to Beltway blindness, a common affliction in the nation's media. In Washington, which is in many ways a smaller town than San Francisco, the same 20,000 people talk to each other and decide what the country is thinking. Then they tell the country what it is thinking, and the country says "thank you." Or something.
By contrast, FiveThirtyEight looks at all the polls and extrapolates from known biases and methodology. Its whole modus operandi is listening rather than talking. In the great national echo chamber, it serves as a reminder that data work better than hunches. How bad will it be for the Democrats in November? Watch that space.
If these projections are right, Democrats will look at the last two years and use the word "squander."
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/carroll/#ixzz0xpEEk0Qe
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
Say hi to the Crazy
Jon Carroll
Monday, September 13, 2010
Seems as if the publicity-hungry Florida pastor is not going to burn those Qurans after all. Thank God for small favors. The excitement over the whole non-incident does prove that the Crazy is out there, feeding on its own fear, prompted by various demagogues and undeterred by facts put forth by the reality-based community.
My own view is that Islamophobia is a convenient resting place for irrational fears of all kinds. Islam is not the same as terrorism, and I suspect a lot of people promoting this malign ideology know that. But their followers are prepared to believe anything. They're already afraid; the Crazy gives that fear a name.
They're afraid of immigrants crossing the border; they're afraid of the government taking away their health care; they're afraid of Barack Obama because he's a Muslim or a foreign national or a secret terror president or something. This is different from agreeing or disagreeing with specific policies; that's just political discourse. This is baseless ranting. This is ignorance with a megaphone. It ain't pretty, and it's all ours.
Of course, Iran seems to be run by ignorant people with complete police power and deep ignorance. We are not alone in the world in flaunting our stupidity, but we're not a police state, either. Our crazies are ignorant by choice. I know I'm supposed to be proud that these people are allowed to speak freely, even though a lot of what they say and do is very effective enemy propaganda, but actually I'm not. The First Amendment can be a bitch sometimes.
And then there's that darn mosque. If you're against that mosque, that means that at some level you are blaming Islam for the bombing of the World Trade Center. Some of that shilly-shallying about "it's just too provocative" and "they should just be more sensitive" is just confused liberal let's-make-everybody-happy nonsense. It should not be an issue, period. Indeed, it wasn't an issue before the Crazy got hold of it.
Let's think about a hallowed ground for a moment, and what obligations the hallowing of a ground imposes on us. Let's take the World Trade Center for a moment; let's think about another ground that definitely deserves to be hallowed: Hiroshima. More than 100,000 people died there, either from the explosion itself or from radiation poisoning.
And what did the residents of Hiroshima do after the war? They built a Peace Park at ground zero. They declared themselves a Peace City. Hiroshima's Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, that familiar domed and gutted building that stood near ground zero, is the largest building in the Peace Park. There are no symbols of Japanese triumphalism, no shiny towers to declare its unbreakable spirit. No, the mayor of Hiroshima (and all the mayors after him) decided that the best way to honor the dead was to campaign against nuclear weapons. The city continues to do that today.
It would be nice if our ground zero could become an international home of reconciliation. Instead of continuing the hatred, defuse it. Islam is a religion of peace, just as Christianity is. Each religion has slipped off the peace wagon many times, often in military clashes with each other, but nothing is very wrong with appealing to the better angels of their natures. A peace park in Lower Manhattan; what a concept.
Not that that will happen. We're mad, and we want to stay mad. Not only that, we want our madness to extend beyond the formal boundaries of ground zero and off into the streets, into an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory. Maybe it should extend to all of Manhattan, or the five boroughs, or the entire Northeast.
Or maybe we could honor those who died on 9/11 by building conference rooms and public spaces where services could be held and discussions could be initiated. Maybe we would honor them most by making sure these things never happen again. Because we're never going to beat the terrorists on our own. And as long as we are burning Qurans, we will be turning the whole Muslim world into terrorist sympathizers. If we are putting every Muslim home in a position where terrorists might be seen to be the lesser of two evils, we are cutting our own throats.
And we can say: The Crazy is not a large number of people; they just have loud voices. And the Muslim world can answer: The terrorists are not a large number of people; they just have big guns. And then we stare at each other across the chasm.
The better angels of our nature or the lesser of two evils - you decide.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1FBTNP.DTL
Jon Carroll
Monday, September 13, 2010
Seems as if the publicity-hungry Florida pastor is not going to burn those Qurans after all. Thank God for small favors. The excitement over the whole non-incident does prove that the Crazy is out there, feeding on its own fear, prompted by various demagogues and undeterred by facts put forth by the reality-based community.
My own view is that Islamophobia is a convenient resting place for irrational fears of all kinds. Islam is not the same as terrorism, and I suspect a lot of people promoting this malign ideology know that. But their followers are prepared to believe anything. They're already afraid; the Crazy gives that fear a name.
They're afraid of immigrants crossing the border; they're afraid of the government taking away their health care; they're afraid of Barack Obama because he's a Muslim or a foreign national or a secret terror president or something. This is different from agreeing or disagreeing with specific policies; that's just political discourse. This is baseless ranting. This is ignorance with a megaphone. It ain't pretty, and it's all ours.
Of course, Iran seems to be run by ignorant people with complete police power and deep ignorance. We are not alone in the world in flaunting our stupidity, but we're not a police state, either. Our crazies are ignorant by choice. I know I'm supposed to be proud that these people are allowed to speak freely, even though a lot of what they say and do is very effective enemy propaganda, but actually I'm not. The First Amendment can be a bitch sometimes.
And then there's that darn mosque. If you're against that mosque, that means that at some level you are blaming Islam for the bombing of the World Trade Center. Some of that shilly-shallying about "it's just too provocative" and "they should just be more sensitive" is just confused liberal let's-make-everybody-happy nonsense. It should not be an issue, period. Indeed, it wasn't an issue before the Crazy got hold of it.
Let's think about a hallowed ground for a moment, and what obligations the hallowing of a ground imposes on us. Let's take the World Trade Center for a moment; let's think about another ground that definitely deserves to be hallowed: Hiroshima. More than 100,000 people died there, either from the explosion itself or from radiation poisoning.
And what did the residents of Hiroshima do after the war? They built a Peace Park at ground zero. They declared themselves a Peace City. Hiroshima's Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, that familiar domed and gutted building that stood near ground zero, is the largest building in the Peace Park. There are no symbols of Japanese triumphalism, no shiny towers to declare its unbreakable spirit. No, the mayor of Hiroshima (and all the mayors after him) decided that the best way to honor the dead was to campaign against nuclear weapons. The city continues to do that today.
It would be nice if our ground zero could become an international home of reconciliation. Instead of continuing the hatred, defuse it. Islam is a religion of peace, just as Christianity is. Each religion has slipped off the peace wagon many times, often in military clashes with each other, but nothing is very wrong with appealing to the better angels of their natures. A peace park in Lower Manhattan; what a concept.
Not that that will happen. We're mad, and we want to stay mad. Not only that, we want our madness to extend beyond the formal boundaries of ground zero and off into the streets, into an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory. Maybe it should extend to all of Manhattan, or the five boroughs, or the entire Northeast.
Or maybe we could honor those who died on 9/11 by building conference rooms and public spaces where services could be held and discussions could be initiated. Maybe we would honor them most by making sure these things never happen again. Because we're never going to beat the terrorists on our own. And as long as we are burning Qurans, we will be turning the whole Muslim world into terrorist sympathizers. If we are putting every Muslim home in a position where terrorists might be seen to be the lesser of two evils, we are cutting our own throats.
And we can say: The Crazy is not a large number of people; they just have loud voices. And the Muslim world can answer: The terrorists are not a large number of people; they just have big guns. And then we stare at each other across the chasm.
The better angels of our nature or the lesser of two evils - you decide.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1FBTNP.DTL
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
That darn old gay agenda
As you may have heard, the Republicans in the Senate, joined by four Democrats, effectively filibustered the new defense authorization bill. They said, in effect, yes, it would be nice to pay our soldiers, but what about this "don't ask, don't tell" repeal? Can't have that. Bad gay people.
Actually, they didn't say that. As Gail Collins pointed out in the New York Times, they made all sorts of procedural objections and, along the way, expressed shock that senators would add amendments and blah blah blah. Every one of the senators has added porky amendments to appropriation bills, but now they are alarmed, yes, alarmed and confused that their colleagues would do the same.
It's all very crafty, really. If you don't put your vote on record one way or the other, you make the conversation about parliamentary etiquette. If you care more about winning than about justice, then you play any one of the numerous games the Senate allows you to play. It's an outrage, but what the heck - we've come to expect outrage from the Senate. "Dysfunctional" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Here's what gets my goat, among the many things that get my goat. Senators live in Washington, D.C., most of the time. They mix with rich people and powerful people at private cocktail parties and dinners. They are aware that some of the people they socialize with are gay. They are aware that some of their colleagues, and the aides to their colleagues, are gay. They no more believe that gay people are a threat to unit cohesion than they believe that aliens have established villages on Jupiter.
And yet they have to pretend for their people. Their constituents, their base, still believe that one gay guy in a shower room is going to panic the other soldiers. It's not true, of course, but the panderers have to keep their base happy in this election year - one-third of the Senate is up for re-election - so they get all misty-eyed about manly showers with manly men. Or something.
Also, they seek to convince voters that gay people are a threat of the American family. They ignore that many loving American families have gay members; sometimes Mom and Dad are actually Mom and Mom. The world does not fall in. When Adam and Steve adopt kids, the moon does not wobble in its orbit. If the American family is in trouble, I would suggest two reasons - people getting married too young, and drug and alcohol abuse. You can't really outlaw either of these things - you think Congress is gonna ban alcohol? That's the drug of choice for home wreckers everywhere - but Congress people can be aware of the social realities.
But the senators have chosen bigotry because it's easier. They don't believe in the malign effects of gayitude, but the Tea Party naifs do believe it. They don't get out much - and they are unwilling to place blame for the problems of the Amercian family where it belongs, mostly with young, straight, marginally employed people. You could argue that the fiscal policies of George W. Bush were responsible for the breakup of American families far more than anything any gay people might do. In fact, I do argue that.
I have no idea what will happen with DADT now. I do know that we are in danger of losing an entire generation of smart, competent military officers because of disgust over the continuing disharmony. Polls have shown that people don't really mind serving with gays, but they do mind serving with bigots. And yet the senators, asked to pick a side, choose bigotry. It's a grotesque dilemma - it shouldn't even be a choice - but that's what's happening.
Is it any wonder reasonable people feel like staying home in November? Democrats better think fast.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/carroll/#ixzz10kMx9pvg
As you may have heard, the Republicans in the Senate, joined by four Democrats, effectively filibustered the new defense authorization bill. They said, in effect, yes, it would be nice to pay our soldiers, but what about this "don't ask, don't tell" repeal? Can't have that. Bad gay people.
Actually, they didn't say that. As Gail Collins pointed out in the New York Times, they made all sorts of procedural objections and, along the way, expressed shock that senators would add amendments and blah blah blah. Every one of the senators has added porky amendments to appropriation bills, but now they are alarmed, yes, alarmed and confused that their colleagues would do the same.
It's all very crafty, really. If you don't put your vote on record one way or the other, you make the conversation about parliamentary etiquette. If you care more about winning than about justice, then you play any one of the numerous games the Senate allows you to play. It's an outrage, but what the heck - we've come to expect outrage from the Senate. "Dysfunctional" doesn't even begin to describe it.
Here's what gets my goat, among the many things that get my goat. Senators live in Washington, D.C., most of the time. They mix with rich people and powerful people at private cocktail parties and dinners. They are aware that some of the people they socialize with are gay. They are aware that some of their colleagues, and the aides to their colleagues, are gay. They no more believe that gay people are a threat to unit cohesion than they believe that aliens have established villages on Jupiter.
And yet they have to pretend for their people. Their constituents, their base, still believe that one gay guy in a shower room is going to panic the other soldiers. It's not true, of course, but the panderers have to keep their base happy in this election year - one-third of the Senate is up for re-election - so they get all misty-eyed about manly showers with manly men. Or something.
Also, they seek to convince voters that gay people are a threat of the American family. They ignore that many loving American families have gay members; sometimes Mom and Dad are actually Mom and Mom. The world does not fall in. When Adam and Steve adopt kids, the moon does not wobble in its orbit. If the American family is in trouble, I would suggest two reasons - people getting married too young, and drug and alcohol abuse. You can't really outlaw either of these things - you think Congress is gonna ban alcohol? That's the drug of choice for home wreckers everywhere - but Congress people can be aware of the social realities.
But the senators have chosen bigotry because it's easier. They don't believe in the malign effects of gayitude, but the Tea Party naifs do believe it. They don't get out much - and they are unwilling to place blame for the problems of the Amercian family where it belongs, mostly with young, straight, marginally employed people. You could argue that the fiscal policies of George W. Bush were responsible for the breakup of American families far more than anything any gay people might do. In fact, I do argue that.
I have no idea what will happen with DADT now. I do know that we are in danger of losing an entire generation of smart, competent military officers because of disgust over the continuing disharmony. Polls have shown that people don't really mind serving with gays, but they do mind serving with bigots. And yet the senators, asked to pick a side, choose bigotry. It's a grotesque dilemma - it shouldn't even be a choice - but that's what's happening.
Is it any wonder reasonable people feel like staying home in November? Democrats better think fast.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/carroll/#ixzz10kMx9pvg
-
static
- IAC Addict!
- Location: Somewhere on I-5
- Status: Offline
Please get it together
It is so embarrassing to be a Democrat. Oh, we did have that nice moment when the world was young, way back in 2008, but that seemed to fade away really quickly. Obama was not actually a charismatic figure, merely a very smart one, and a lot of the pledges he made during the campaign turned out to be nonstarters.
Close Guantanamo? Who even remembers Guantanamo anymore? Push for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Not happening. He supported the revocation of "don't ask, don't tell" as contained in the defense appropriations bill, for all the good it did him and us. The Republicans, in their laughable Pledge to America (they really need Newt Gingrich right now, except Newt Gingrich is no longer Newt Gingrich, he's just some meandering twit on the talk show circuit), talked once again about protecting the family, which no one believes anymore except the Tea Party partisans.
The post-election roundelay will be very interesting for the Tea Party folks, I think. Some of them will find out that all that enthusiasm on the stump does not translate to votes, while others, freshly elected, will arrive in Washington with their cool old ideas and find it a dark and troublesome place, where seniority means all and they ain't got none. But I digress.
So I give Obama a solid C. He had a very steep learning curve, and he got all sorts of small things done, all sorts of quiet appointments made, that will help this country over the next decade. What drags the grade down is the Afghanistan war. He knows it's not winnable, we know it's not winnable, and yet he listened to his military men because (beware: armchair psychologizing) he was uncertain about his grasp of military affairs.
It's all going to end badly. If Obama wins a second term - and don't laugh; it's a real possibility - it will end badly on his watch, and it will be a source of grief for him and for the country.
Obama is still an interesting and, to some, still an inspiring figure. His speech to the United Nations last week is an example of his commitment to foreign aid, at a time when most Americans vastly overestimate the amount we spend annually to help other countries. Fortunately, the media was distracted by bright shiny objects somewhere else - probably the aforementioned Pledge to America, so the speech didn't get much coverage, which overall (I hate to say this) is a good thing.
Here's a bit from an e-mail from Democratic operative Michael Sargeant: "The GOP 'Pledge' calls for $3.8 trillion in new debt. It would take away health insurance from 28 million Americans. And it would allow health insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions unless they're lucky enough to already have coverage."
Are the Democratic candidates pointing this out? Not a lot. Even though the Pledge takes most of the good ideas from Obamacare and recycles them as GOPmed, the Democrats have found yet another third rail of American politics. They do that; they go around identifying third rails and refusing to touch them. Meanwhile the Republicans grasp them firmly and, like a band of paunchy Supermans, twist them to meet their own agenda.
And then there's the tax bill. Don't get me started. As you'll recall, there was a bill before Congress that would let the Bush tax cuts that aided the very most wealthy in the country expire. It was a good fight - the government needed the money, the people needed the money, and the billionaires didn't. Sorry, billionaires, that's what living in a democracy is about. We help each other.
But the Democratic congressional delegation was afraid of a "bruising" floor fight (the adjective is the New York Times'), so they folded their tents and tiptoed away until after the election, when a lame-duck floor fight is sure to be successful. Ha! Our own Sen. Dianne Feinstein opined that "the time for the vote is after the election" because, presumably, taxes are the third rail of American politics. How many rails are there?
DiFi - so strong against the Mitchell Brothers, so cowardly against the Republicans.
I see a kind of cobra-and-mongoose thing going on. The Democrats can't help but be mesmerized by the brazen rewriting of history that the Republicans engage in. They follow every move, attracted by its brazenness. "I wish we could do that," they say, still moving as the cobra moves. Sometimes the Democrats win anyway, because the inside baseball of Capitol Hill is not everything in an election, but a lot of times they don't when they should, damn them.
Third parties never work in this country, so we're stuck with the two we have. Oh joy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z10rE2i0zh
It is so embarrassing to be a Democrat. Oh, we did have that nice moment when the world was young, way back in 2008, but that seemed to fade away really quickly. Obama was not actually a charismatic figure, merely a very smart one, and a lot of the pledges he made during the campaign turned out to be nonstarters.
Close Guantanamo? Who even remembers Guantanamo anymore? Push for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act? Not happening. He supported the revocation of "don't ask, don't tell" as contained in the defense appropriations bill, for all the good it did him and us. The Republicans, in their laughable Pledge to America (they really need Newt Gingrich right now, except Newt Gingrich is no longer Newt Gingrich, he's just some meandering twit on the talk show circuit), talked once again about protecting the family, which no one believes anymore except the Tea Party partisans.
The post-election roundelay will be very interesting for the Tea Party folks, I think. Some of them will find out that all that enthusiasm on the stump does not translate to votes, while others, freshly elected, will arrive in Washington with their cool old ideas and find it a dark and troublesome place, where seniority means all and they ain't got none. But I digress.
So I give Obama a solid C. He had a very steep learning curve, and he got all sorts of small things done, all sorts of quiet appointments made, that will help this country over the next decade. What drags the grade down is the Afghanistan war. He knows it's not winnable, we know it's not winnable, and yet he listened to his military men because (beware: armchair psychologizing) he was uncertain about his grasp of military affairs.
It's all going to end badly. If Obama wins a second term - and don't laugh; it's a real possibility - it will end badly on his watch, and it will be a source of grief for him and for the country.
Obama is still an interesting and, to some, still an inspiring figure. His speech to the United Nations last week is an example of his commitment to foreign aid, at a time when most Americans vastly overestimate the amount we spend annually to help other countries. Fortunately, the media was distracted by bright shiny objects somewhere else - probably the aforementioned Pledge to America, so the speech didn't get much coverage, which overall (I hate to say this) is a good thing.
Here's a bit from an e-mail from Democratic operative Michael Sargeant: "The GOP 'Pledge' calls for $3.8 trillion in new debt. It would take away health insurance from 28 million Americans. And it would allow health insurers to deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions unless they're lucky enough to already have coverage."
Are the Democratic candidates pointing this out? Not a lot. Even though the Pledge takes most of the good ideas from Obamacare and recycles them as GOPmed, the Democrats have found yet another third rail of American politics. They do that; they go around identifying third rails and refusing to touch them. Meanwhile the Republicans grasp them firmly and, like a band of paunchy Supermans, twist them to meet their own agenda.
And then there's the tax bill. Don't get me started. As you'll recall, there was a bill before Congress that would let the Bush tax cuts that aided the very most wealthy in the country expire. It was a good fight - the government needed the money, the people needed the money, and the billionaires didn't. Sorry, billionaires, that's what living in a democracy is about. We help each other.
But the Democratic congressional delegation was afraid of a "bruising" floor fight (the adjective is the New York Times'), so they folded their tents and tiptoed away until after the election, when a lame-duck floor fight is sure to be successful. Ha! Our own Sen. Dianne Feinstein opined that "the time for the vote is after the election" because, presumably, taxes are the third rail of American politics. How many rails are there?
DiFi - so strong against the Mitchell Brothers, so cowardly against the Republicans.
I see a kind of cobra-and-mongoose thing going on. The Democrats can't help but be mesmerized by the brazen rewriting of history that the Republicans engage in. They follow every move, attracted by its brazenness. "I wish we could do that," they say, still moving as the cobra moves. Sometimes the Democrats win anyway, because the inside baseball of Capitol Hill is not everything in an election, but a lot of times they don't when they should, damn them.
Third parties never work in this country, so we're stuck with the two we have. Oh joy.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z10rE2i0zh