You can't make this stuff up. This is what the Christian Right has come to in this country. Via John Cole:
“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said. “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”
I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian church, so I spent a lot of my youth reading and studying the Bible. Although I have abandoned the literal, supernatural interpretation of the Bible, I have retained the core principles of Jesus' philosophy, along with enough grounding in the Bible as literature to see the irony in this situation. Obviously I'm not the only one to see the comparison to this episode from the book of Exodus:
For those who aren't familiar with the story, while Moses was up on the mountain getting the Ten Commandments, the people he had just led out of slavery in Egypt, the Hebrews, were down below melting their gold jewelry to make an idol in the shape of a calf. When Moses came down and saw them praying to it, he was really mad. What followed was 40 years of wandering in the wilderness.
Praying for wealth is the antithesis of Christian philosophy. The self-proclaimed leaders of the right-wing religious movement in America have a lot more in common with another group of people, and I don't mean Jesus' disciples, but the Pharisees.
The next time you see or hear someone claim they are doing God's work by persecuting the "sinners" and praying for success in the stock market, I think it's safe to say that Jesus would be seriously offended. I know I am.And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
John 2:16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
[Updated below]
Former U.S. Ambassador Peter Bridges writing at The Huffington Post says:
A friend and former colleague of mine in the Foreign Service, Kevin McGuire, some time ago drafted a short statement of support for Obama and began to ask retired Foreign Service officers if they would sign it. So far 334 of us have done so, including by my count 66 former American ambassadors.
If you would like to know why we have done so and who we are, you can find our reasons and our signatures at Foreign Policy for Obama.Com: Declaration of Support by Over 280 Former Diplomats.
You can go to ForeignPolicyforObama.com and click on the link in the left hand column.
I will remind you that the Foreign Service of the United States is our country's career diplomatic and consular service. We staff both the State Department in Washington and our embassies and consulates abroad. Usually two-thirds or more of our ambassadors are Foreign Service officers, although both Democratic and Republican administrations have made a number of ambassadorial appointments for political reasons. Some of these Republican appointees and, by my count, two former career officers, have come out for McCain.
As Ambassador Bridges points out, these are people who understand America's role in the world better than most politicians and pundits. Their support for Obama adds considerable substance to the idea that Barack is the best candidate to deal with America's international issues and restore our reputation as the "Good Guys" that has been severely damaged by Bush-Cheney.
UPDATE: Also see this by Richard Holbrooke, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the chief architect of the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the war in Bosnia.
Those of you who've read my scribblings know that I often cite Paul Krugman, particularly with regard to economic matters. In case you missed it, he was recently awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics, so add that to his bona fides in this area. In his column today he discusses why the massive bailout passed by Congress is not having the intended effect:
It was good news when Mr. Paulson finally agreed to funnel capital into the banking system in return for partial ownership. But ... the U.S. Treasury’s bank rescue plan ... contains no safeguards against the possibility that banks will simply sit on the money. “Unlike the British government, which is mandating lending requirements in return for capital injections, our government seems afraid to do anything except plead.” And sure enough, the banks seem to be hoarding the cash.
There’s also bizarre stuff going on with regard to the mortgage market ... and as a result, markets are still treating [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's] debt as a risky asset, driving mortgage rates up at a time when they should be going down.
What’s happening, I suspect, is that the Bush administration’s anti-government ideology still stands in the way of effective action. Events have forced Mr. Paulson into a partial nationalization of the financial system — but he refuses to use the power that comes with ownership.
If, like me, economic discussions tend to make your eyes glaze over, Annonymous Liberal has a great analogy for what's going on that makes the point in a way a regular "Joe" can understand:
The analogy to sports betting is apt. When you bet on who's going to win the Super Bowl, you're not investing in anything. You're just placing a bet that is tied to an external event. That's what the derivatives market is. And for the financial industry, the bursting of the housing bubble was the equivalent of the Giants beating the Patriots in last year's Super Bowl, an unexpected outcome that caused a lot of people to lose money.
[...]
The saddest part of the whole story, though, is that the event that brought the whole house of cards down really wasn't unexpected; it wasn't the equivalent of the Giants beating the Patriots. That was a genuine upset. Not too many people placed large bets on the Giants winning that game. But lots of people saw the collapse of the housing market coming. There were numerous scholarly papers written on the subject. And there were lots of investors who were willing to bet big on the impending collapse. Those people are all billionaires now. And the companies who took their bets--venerable institutions like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and AIG--are bankrupt.
Many of the devotees of unfettered free markets, notably Alan Greenspan, now are having second thoughts about the ability of the magic of the market to overcome basic human greed. Others, like Krugman, never bought that idea to begin with. America, and the rest of the world, needs a major change in economic policy thinking that will not come from John McCain and the Republicans.
One of the TV shows that defined my childhood was "The Andy Griffith Show." Having grown up in Arkansas, the characters were all familiar to me, and not in the cartoonish way of "The Beverly Hillbillies," but with a real authenticity that resonated with me then and still does to this day. Sheriff Andy was the father figure that I think now looking back had as much influence on the formation of my values as a fictional character can have. Opie was the little brother I never had. While I was still in Junior High School, one of the first things I did on stage in front of a large audience was a monologue by Andy Griffith called "What It Was, Was Football." I still have great admiration and respect for Ron Howard as a person and a filmmaker. So this video strikes a chord with me on a personal level, and I just have to share it with you.
Okay, I enjoyed "Happy Days" and The Fonz too, but not on the same level. The guy who can rid us of the Mayberry Machiavellis is Mayberry's Sheriff Andy — together with Opie, Barney, Aunt Bea, and all the rest of us standing up for what's right. (Walks away whistling with fishing rod in hand...)
Once again we see the Rovian tactic of attacking your opponent on the subject that you are most vulnerable on backfire on the Republicans this election cycle. Via John Cole:
John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to a Republican operative accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states, it has emerged.
As the McCain camp attempts to tie Barack Obama to claims of registration irregularities by the activist group ACORN, campaign finance records detailing the payment to the firm of Nathan Sproul, investigated several times for fraud, threatens to derail that argument.
[...]
Mr Sproul has been investigated on numerous occasions for preventing Democrats from voting, destroying registration forms and leading efforts to get Ralph Nader on ballots to leach the Democratic vote.
To which Cole adds:
Only one arrest this election cycle for fraud, and it just so happens to be a guy paid by the McCain/Palin campaign. Funny that. Presumably these crimes were only committed in the pro-America parts of America.
Heh.
Via Andrew Sullivan, this is who Barack really looks like:
Go in peace Madelyn Dunham.... I was looking at this picture of Obama's grandparents and thinking how much he looks like his grandfather. And suddenly, for whatever reason, I was struck by the fact that they had made the decision to love their daughter, no matter what, and love their grandson, no matter what. I'd bet money that they never even thought of themselves as courageous, that they didn't give much thought to the broader struggles in the the world at the time. They were just doing what right, honorable people do. But the fact is that, in the 60s, you could be disowned for falling in love with a black woman or black man. There is a reason why we have a long history of publicly biracial black people, but not so much of publicly biracial white people.
We often give a pass to racists by noting that they were "of their times." Fair enough, and I know Hawaii was a different beast, but still, today, let us speak of people who were ahead of their times, who were outside of their times. Let us remember that Barack Obama learned the great lessons of life from courageous white people. Let us speak of those who do what normal, right people should always do when faced with a child--commit an act love. Here's to doing the right thing.
One point made by General Colin Powell in his endorsement of Barack Obama for president deserves more discussion (hat tip to Glenn Greenwald):
I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said such things as: "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is: he is not a Muslim. He's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.
But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is: No, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she can be President?
Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion: he's a Muslim, and he might be associated with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
Powell related a story about a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. His name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, a Muslim-American. Greenwald points out:
There has been much condemnation over the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" line of GOP attack, but almost all of it has been on the ground that the attack is factually false as applied to the Christian Obama, not on the ground that it is a reprehensible and dangerous line of attack even if it were factually true.
"Arab" and "Muslim" have become so synonymous with "terrorist" in much of the discourse in America that it's hard for some to believe that their are many, many American Muslims, and they are just as American as the Christians, Jews, Mormons, et al. Again, from Glenn Greenwald:
When John McCain, at that rally in Minnesota last week, sought to chide his supporter for asserting that Obama is an "Arab," McCain did so by pointing out that, in fact, Obama is a "decent family man" -- as though that proves that he's not "an Arab because "decent family man" is the opposite of "Arab"
For those who may have forgotten, the founders of of the United States of America wanted it to be absolutely clear and unambiguous that there was NO state religion here. For example, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states:
...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
And there is the "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [emphasis added]
So if you claim to be a patriotic American, especially a "strict constructionist," you must acknowledge that people of every faith — or no faith — have equal status under the laws of our country. This is what makes freedom of religion possible.
The endorsement of candidates by newspapers doesn't particularly sway people, but it's worth noting for other reasons. For one thing, it's an opportunity for people whose ability to put thoughts into words is very well developed — much better than mine. This is from the LA Times:
We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be.
Lest you think that the endorsements Obama is receiving are primarily from left-leaning publications, consider this from the Chicago Tribune:
This endorsement makes some history for the Chicago Tribune. This is the first time the newspaper has endorsed the Democratic Party's nominee for president.
That's the first Democratic endorsement from them in 161 years! Here's a link to an AP summary of several of the endorsements. Editor and Publisher (via DailyKos) says:
The Obama-Biden ticket maintains its strong lead in the race for newspaper endorsements, picking up 17 more papers in the past day, including the giant Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune on Friday afternoon (see separate story), and the Denver Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Salt Lake Tribune, Kansas City Star, Southwest News-Herald (Ill.) and Chicago Sun-Times tonight.
This brings his lead over McCain-Palin by this measure to well over 3-1, at 58-16, including most of the major papers that have decided so far. In contrast, John Kerry barely edged George W. Bush in endorsements in 2004, by about 220 to 205.
UPDATE: Add Colin Powell to the list of Republicans endorsing Obama.
There are few, if any, things one can do to undermine democracy that would be worse than denying citizens the right to vote. And yet this is precisely what the Republican Party is trying to do. They figure, if you can't win an election fairly, then steal it. This is something they cannot be allowed to get away with. All this shrieking and hand-wringing from Republicans about ACORN and illegal aliens committing voter fraud is ... well, trying to keep my PG rating, I'll say, balderdash.
As I've mentioned before, this is the very issue at the heart of the U.S. Attorney firing scandal, which has yet to be fully resolved. One of the USAs fired, David Iglesias of New Mexico, described it this way:
"I'm astounded that this issue is being trotted out again," Iglesias told TPMmuckraker. "Based on what I saw in 2004 and 2006, it's a scare tactic."
The Obama campaign has responded to this latest round of voter fraud accusations:
"With this voter fraud [investigation], we're seeing an unholy alliance of law enforcement and the ugliest form of partisan politics," Bob Bauer, an elections lawyer with the Obama camp, said on a conference call with reporters just now. Bauer compared the decision to launch the investigation with the US attorneys scandal, in which several US attorneys were fired for their unwillingess to pursue politically charged cases, including voter fraud, with sufficient aggression to satisfy the Bush administration.
Bauer released a letter sent to Attorney General Michael Mukasey calling on him to have the issue taken on by Nora Dannehy, the prosecutor he appointed to investigate the US attorney firings.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also weighed in on the Republican efforts to suppress the vote in Ohio:
The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court’s order requiring state officials in Ohio to supply information that would have made it easier to challenge prospective voters. The decision was a setback for Ohio Republicans, who had sued to force the Ohio secretary of state, a Democrat, to provide information about database mismatches to county officials.
The fact is that the whole voter fraud scare is nothing but smoke and mirrors. It makes no sense if you think about it logically, but of course the Republican Party operatives who promote this are counting on people not thinking about it at all, but simply reacting emotionally to it. Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent article in Slate on the issue, in which she says:
Large-scale, coordinated vote stealing doesn't happen. The incentives—unlike the incentives for registration fraud—just aren't there. In an interview this week with Salon, Lorraine Minnite of Barnard College, who has studied vote fraud systematically, noted that "between 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty others were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five were guilty of voting more than once. That's 26 criminal voters." Twenty-six criminal voters despite the fact that U.S. attorneys, like David Iglesias in New Mexico, were fired for searching high and low for vote-fraud cases to prosecute and coming up empty. Twenty-six criminal voters despite the fact that five days before the 2006 election, then-interim U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman exuberantly (and futilely) indicted four ACORN workers, even when Justice Department policy barred such prosecutions in the days before elections. RNC General Counsel Sean Cairncross has said he is unaware of a single improper vote cast because of bad cards submitted in the course of a voter-registration effort. Republican campaign consultant Royal Masset says, "[I]n-person voter fraud is nonexistent. It doesn't happen, and ... makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"
That doesn't stop the McCain-Palin campaign from trying to use ACORN as a boogeyman to whip up anger on the right. Plus, it goes hand in hand with their demonization of illegal aliens. Anonymous Liberal puts it in perspective:
Some suggest that this willing army of criminals might be recruited from the ranks of illegal aliens or unnaturalized citizens, people who are not eligible to vote. That's nonsense. Illegal aliens live in constant fear of being discovered and deported. Good luck getting an illegal alien to submit a registration form much less actually go to a polling station. And legal residents have very similar fears. Voter fraud is a deportable offense. These folks value their immigration status more than anything in the world and would never risk it in order to cast a vote.
And now the right-wing fringe is acting on the provocation from McCain and Palin by threatening and vandelizing ACORN offices. These kinds of tactics deserve to wind up on the trash heap of history. There's nothing honorable or American about it.
Legendary Bluegrass musician, Ralph Stanley, has recorded a radio ad for the Obama campaign. Give it a listen. Maybe that has something to do with Obama's surging poll numbers in Virginia.
