rss

Category: hypocrisy

2
By Mark Tiedemann on November 11th, 2009

Church To State: “Do What We Want Or Else.”

The divide between church and state seems on the one hand to be growing but on the other narrowing, especially when you consider how intrusive established religions have been. Representatives of the Catholic Church sat in Nanci Pelosi’s office of late while negotiations for the health care bill were ongoing, overseeing what she would do about abortion.

Now this.

Any way one reads this, it comes out as a threat. The quid pro quo is explicit. “If you don’t bend to our will on this, we will stop services your city relies on.”

I have in the past believed that the tax exempt status of religions was a necessary work-around to preserve the fiction of separation. In the past, there have been instances of state intrusion directly into religions in, for one example, state funding for programs in parochial schools. There was always a quid pro quo in such offers and practices.

But never has a representative of the state sat in the office of a minister while he drafted a sermon to be sure certain details got left out or included. Never, despite massive abuses by religious institutions in real estate and related financial areas, has the state moved to revoke 501(c)(3) status. It may be that any state official who tried it would be booted out of office summarily, but nevertheless that has been the unspoken law of the land.

Seems the courtesy doesn’t go both ways. If that’s the case, I think it is time to revisit the whole issue. If the Catholic Church sees itself as providing services as an arm of the civil service sector and allows itself the conceit that it may use that service as a lever to influence political decisions, then they have implicitly given up due consideration as an inviolate institution, free from state requirements of taxation and regulation.

Seems fairly clear cut to me. Obviously, there will be those who disagree. But it’s time, I think, to seriously reconsider the state relationship to so-called “nonprofit” “apolitical” tax exempt institutions.

American Culture • Culture • Current Events • Featured • Law • Media • Noteworthy • Politics • Religion • hypocrisy
Full Story
12
Making children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”
By Erich Vieth on October 02nd, 2009

Making children say the pledge of allegiance over and over is “teaching them history.”

I remember how, back in the 1960’s, I was forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance every day in grade school. Those were the days when we had nuclear bomb drills: we lined up and marched to the school basement, where we would presumably be safe from the fallout of atomic bombs. Some of my neighbors even had bomb shelters dug out in their yards.

Based on my own experience, children don’t like saying the pledge. It is mind-numbing to children; as proof, consider that you never see children saying the Pledge on their own. They say the Pledge only when they are forced to do so by insecure adults. All honest and rational people know that the children say the pledge only because they are forced to do so. All honest people also know that one can be a patriot without ever saying the Pledge of Allegiance. As proof, none of the following people ever said the Pledge of Allegiance: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine . . .

Here is some more history about the Pledge: It was created in 1892 and it didn’t originally contain any reference to “God.” The phrase “under God” was added in the late 1940’s and made popular through the 1950’s.

Fast forward to 2009. Many public schools force their students to say the Pledge of Allegiance each day. In addition to being mind-numbing, the Pledge forces children to acknowledge the existence of “God.” But isn’t it unconstitutional to allow government employees to force children to acknowledge “God”? No problem, according to a recent decision by the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire. According to the Court, the phrase “under God” merely recognizes “the historical fact that our nation was believed to have been founded under God.” You see, when we force the children to say the Pledge, we are (according to the Court) “teaching” them about what people in the past used to believe. How can it be that a Pledge that is written entirely in the present tense is somehow teaching children about something that happened in the past? This kind of reasoning should get an “F” in law school. In its long, contorted and evasive opinion, the Court invokes a state law “Patriot Act”:

The New Hampshire Pledge statute is titled “New Hampshire School Patriot Act.” RSA 194:15-c. The statute’s own words describe its purpose as continuing “the policy of teaching our country’s history to the elementary and secondary pupils of this state.” RSA 194:15-c, I. That is a secular purpose.

Note further that, to the extent that the Pledge is about history, it is false. “Liberty and Justice” were not “for all,” for long periods of our history. Many of our people were enslaved and denied any voice in our government. As “history,” the Pledge is facile and absurd. Children should be taught real history rather than be forced to stand up and repeat the same phrase over and over.

The Court also held that saying the Pledge (including the words “under God”) has no religious meaning, because it does not “thank God” or “give gratitude to God.” It constitutes “benign deism,” which, according to the Court, is not really about religion.

When Congress added the words “under God,” to the Pledge in 1954, its actual intent probably had far more to do with politics than religion — more to do with currying favor with the electorate than with an Almighty.

The Court concluded that the phrase “under God” is not religious, but merely an “historic artifact.” With this reasoning, saying the “Our Father” is also about history, not religion.” The Court came to this opinion even though the Pledge requires children to acknowledge the existence of God. This is a religion assertion with which many millions of Americans fervently disagree.

The Court further held that making children say the Pledge is not “coercion,” suggesting that little children had the power to decide not to participate. According to the Court, recitation of the Pledge is to “enhance instruction in the Nation’s history.” I guess it’s official now. Making children recite the same vague things over and over is “teaching them.” and having them acknowledge God is teaching them “history.” And putting the pressure on 8-year olds to affirmatively opt out of saying the Pledge when most of their classmates are too scared to do otherwise is supposedly giving them a “choice.”

I suppose, then, that if a public school in Detroit were to make children recite every day that the United States is “one nation under Allah,” that this would not be religious, but merely a history lesson, “teaching” the children about the beliefs of some of the people who have lived in the United States.

This Federal Court’s decision is about the most dishonest legal opinion since Plessy v. Ferguson. It’s a classic case of drawing the curve, then plotting the data–it is a perfect example of results-based jurisprudence. What an honest Court should have admitted is that the government is prohibited by the First Amendment of the Constitution from taking any position on whether “God” exists, and that the Pledge (written in the present tense) is a clear assertion that a supernatural being named God exists.

I’m not arguing that no one should say the Pledge. If someone can find a wayward child who, entirely on his/her own, wants to say the Pledge instead of playing at recess, have at it. As far as requiring groups of children to say it together, save it for churches.

See this related post: Religious Rituals are Adaptive Because they are Onerous.

Culture • Featured • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Religion • hypocrisy
Full Story
0
By Mindy Carney on September 30th, 2009

Jon Stewart remains my hero -

As I have not been around DI of late, I thought I’d pop in just momentarily to reiterate my adoration (no, that’s not too strong a word) of Jon Stewart. His show recently won an Emmy and in a poll conducted by Time Magazine over the summer, he was once again named the most trusted journalist in America.

Some find that appalling, that a comedian doing “fake news” would be trusted - but not only do I not find it a surprise, I find it emblematic of what is great about our country. Yep, strangely enough, I believe that beyond all of the nonsense foisted upon us by the fear-mongers and the naysayers and the hand-wringers, above the greed and corruption, the re-emergence of public racism and class-ism that has knocked the very wind out of us over this last year - we, as a culture, have maintained one vital component of our identity as a nation.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
America: Target America
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		 Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

We still have a senses of humor. Most importantly, we can still poke fun at ourselves.

Stewart takes on the rightwing nutjobs with LMAO-level attacks, but he just as willingly puts Obama and the Democratic congressfolk smack in their liberal places. He brilliantly points out the hypocrisy by putting videos back-to-back in which politicians completely contradict themselves. He forces us to see the political blustering for what it is, and gives voice to sanity in the midst of complete crazy. He makes sure we never forget our humanity.

Last week, he took on the absurdly ridiculous overreaction to the elementary school in New Jersey in which children sang a song about the new President during Black History Month. As he points out, no one complained about it at the time. And Stewart’s lampooning of the way the rightwing media turned this non-story into something murky and evil became especially potent when he pulled out video of school children in New Orleans singing a song in which they THANK THE LORD for Bush and FEMA!!! Good grief. The twinkle in Stewart’s eyes as he reads the lyrics that group of kids sang is priceless.

Carry on -

American Culture • Censorship • Communication • Community • Culture • Current Events • Education • Entertainment • Humor • Media • children • hypocrisy • ignorance
Full Story
15
The ACORN hypocrisy
By Brynn Jacobs on September 23rd, 2009

The ACORN hypocrisy

Over the past few weeks, videotapes have been trickling out that purport to show ACORN employees offered tax advice to those seeking to engage in child prostitution or other salacious activities. Having viewed the tapes, it’s obvious that they have been edited extensively, and that alone should make one wonder what the original tapes may show. Further, Media Matters has a lengthy critique of the credibility of the conservative activists and the manufactured news story that they have created, including failing to report that in at least one instance police were called and the filmmakers were removed from the premises after inquiring about underage prostitution. But really, whether ACORN employees did or did not do everything they are accused of is a side issue.

The Huffington Post yesterday pointed out that the legislative zeal to cut off funding for ACORN may have created an even bigger problem: it may eliminate the entire military-industrial complex. You see, the legislation prohibits federal funding or promotion of organizations that, among other things, “has filed a fraudulent form with any Federal or State regulatory agency”. The Project on Government Oversight (POGO) maintains a database of companies holding federal contracts that also have “histories of misconduct such as fraud” that would ostensibly bar them from receiving any further governmental funding under the “Defund ACORN Act”. Top violators include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grummond, Raytheon, KBR (former Halliburton subsidiary)…. and a staggering number of other large corporations doing business with the federal government. House Republican leader John Boehner released a statement congratulating house Republicans for all they “have done to hold ACORN accountable for its abuse of taxpayer dollars and the public trust.” One wonders whether he will hold these other corporations to the same standard that they require of ACORN? After all, the scale of the violations by the weapons industry dwarfs anything ACORN is accused of. For fiscal year 2007, Lockheed Martin had federal contracts valued at $34.2 billion (with a b) dollars, and the cost of their misconduct since 1995 is valued at $577.2 million. ACORN has only received $53 million in federal funds since 1994, and none of the allegations show any actual harm was done to the government. In other words, Lockeed Martin has committed fraud to the tune of over 10 times the total amount of federal funding ACORN has received.

American Culture • Fraud • Social justice • hypocrisy
Full Story
4
By Brynn Jacobs on September 18th, 2009

Anti-socialist protesters resort to inferior free-market solution

Sometimes, the hypocrisy is so delicious, I can’t stand it. Texas Representative Kevin Brady is apparently upset that the D.C. metro subway system did not provide added services to accommodate the Tea-party protests last weekend. From the Wall Street Journal:

“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”

He added that an 80 year old woman and several veterans in wheelchairs were forced to pay for cabs. These private sector cabs (which were much more expensive and much less convenient) took them to their protest against government-provided services, when they would have preferred to ride on a taxpayer-funded socialist subway. No word yet on whether any heads exploded due to massive internal contradictions.

American Culture • Humor • hypocrisy
Full Story
3
John Adams and Modern Perceptions
By Mark Tiedemann on August 30th, 2009

John Adams and Modern Perceptions

We just watched the last episode of John Adams. I got the DVD from the library and we went through it in one week, all seven installments. I have to admit, the last episode brought tears. The partnership between John and Abigail was well-portrayed and deeply moving. The older I get, the more I find the strongest story resonance with depictions of deep, deep friendships, especially those that exist between lovers, spouses, life partners. I cannot imagine losing Donna, who has become exactly that for me, in spite of the fact that I have friends of longer acquaintance, good friends, too.

The casting was incredible, the make-up superb, the writing first class.

What struck me most about this as well was the marvelously-nuanced dramatization of the fundamental differences in political philosophy between Adams and Jefferson. I can’t help but think that when Adams declared that “the true history of our revolution is lost” he must have been thinking of the initial partnership and later dissolution of like-mindedness between himself and Thomas Jefferson, whom Joseph Ellis depicts an an American Sphinx.

Adams is here portrayed as an idealist who cannot separate his philosophy from his pragmatism. In the first dozen years of the new republic, there was enormous public sentiment for France and when that country descended into the frenzy of its own revolution gone mad, that sentiment demanded that we support the revolutionaries. The irony that France supported us when it was still a monarchy and now those very people that had backed us (granted, as a move in their own war with England) were the victims of the mob ascendant was lost on most people, and apparently even Jefferson, who wanted us to embroil ourselves immediately and deeply in support of the revolutionaries. Washington—how lucky they were to have him—refused. He was a militaryman by training and he understood how to assess the chances of success and how to go about surviving a conflict in which you are outmatched. He had seen more than his share of defeat in a long career and knew well that ideology needed a strong hand to keep it in check, lest it carry you over the precipice. He refused to side with France, believing that neutrality was the only way for the United States to survive. Adams shared that belief.

American Culture • Culture • Education • Featured • Films • History • Noteworthy • Politics • Recommended Reading/Films/Sites • Writing • hypocrisy • ignorance
Full Story
6
Government-Hating: An American Value
By Mark Tiedemann on August 27th, 2009

Government-Hating: An American Value

G.O.P. Chairman Michael Steele made a few remarkably in-your-face comments recently about the health care debate. Here, in his own words, is pretty much where he thinks the nation is going, why it shouldn’t go there, and what the Republican Party stands for.

This morning on NPR he tangled with Steve Inskeep, in particular over this.

One quote in particular caught my eye: ” Simply put, we believe that health-care reform must be centered on patients, not government.”

When you listen to the NPR interview it’s clear that we’re hearing another in the now decades-long tirades against the government which has become the hallmark of Right Wing politics in this country.

In this country, in theory, the government is supposed to be us, the people. We elect our representatives, we tell them how we want them to vote, we change our minds, we are supposed to be in charge. In theory. Obviously, the reality is far from that. For one, we are not a full-fledged democracy, we are a republic, and while we elect those who operate the machinery of the republic on our behalf, we do not have a direct say in the running. Nor could we, really. it is simply too complex. We send our representatives to the various points of departure—state capitols, Washington D.C., county seats, city halls—to do that for us because it is a big, complex, often indecipherable melange of conflicting goals, viewpoints, and problems. We do not have the time to pay the necessary attention to do that work ourselves, so we pay people to do it for us.

So why do we distrust it so much?

Well, because we distrust each other.

American Culture • Bigotry • Communication • Community • Culture • Current Events • Featured • History • Medicine • Politics • hypocrisy • ignorance
Full Story
10
Hitler and the Dining Room Table
By Mark Tiedemann on August 19th, 2009

Hitler and the Dining Room Table

I like Barney Frank. He says what he feels, usually in a way that makes his argument better. But it’s almost a no-brainer to do a comeback on the idiocy with which he was faced in Dartmouth, Massachussetts this past week. I mean, what do you say to someone who thinks it’s a valid statement to compare Obama to Hitler?

A woman carrying a poster with Obama’s image modified with a Hitlerian mustache stepped up to the microphone to ask why Frank supports a Nazi policy.

There are so many things wrong with this it boggles the mind where to begin. Frank’s response was probably the most effective.

“On what planet do you spend most of your time?” he asked. Then: “Ma’am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.”

He then commented that her freedom to carry that poster and make such lamebrained statements was a tribute to the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. I salute his restraint.

To compare any president of the United States to Hitler is a stretch, even with the likes of Obama’s predecessor. (I might consider it for Cheney, but even he does not match the level of malignancy achieved by Adolph, nor does our system allow for such people to act with unrestrained impunity, hard as that might be for some to accept.) But to compare Barack Obama to the man man of the 20th Century is such a profoundly ignorant mischaracterization that it is tempting to write off this whole experiment in potential civilization as a failure.

Where does this shit come from?

The Republican Party, what is left of it, is grasping at straws, sinking in the quicksand of its own inanity. We must take care to not be pulled into the quagmire in some misguided attempt to rescue it through well-intentioned but doomed bipartisan sentiments. The Republican Party has devolved into a nasty cadre of ideologues, a shrinking room of hydrophobic screechers who claw and scratch at anyone who tries to do this country a service by bringing it back to some semblance of decency. They have fed on their own conspiracy-fevered viscera for so long that they cannot even hear the words much less the sentences of opposing viewpoints. We should perhaps let them sink and drown. It would be a kindness.

The fear-mongering is reminiscent of everything we’ve seen since 2000. Rachel Maddow, who is one of the most able of contemporary analysts on television, shows the process and the connections here.

Shouting, screaming, inane blather—noise filling the spaces in which rational discourse might take place if only the decibel level could be reduced. Platitudes, sloganeering, slander, and lies are flooding these so-called town hall meetings and shoving aside reason and discovery and thought. These are not people who are interested in understanding anything, they are people bent on stopping something they’ve been told—been told—they should not allow.

American Culture • Communication • Community • Culture • Current Events • Economy • Education • Language • Media • Politics • Psychology Cognition • Science • hypocrisy • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
16
By Erich Vieth on August 17th, 2009

People bringing guns to locations of Obama speeches. NRA: no comment

The AP reports that increasing numbers of people are bringing guns to locations of Obama speeches. These well-armed citizens include several with assault-type weapons. The article ends with the reporters note that the National Rifle Association offered “no comment.”

I’m just amazed that it is legal to hang around near a high-profile political event with a gun. Next thing you know, the Supreme Court is going to declare bearing weapons as a form of speech.

Current Events • Politics • hypocrisy
Full Story
1
By Erich Vieth on August 07th, 2009

Knowing someone versus loving someone

When I was a teenager, I sometimes got annoyed hearing people getting all excited when they talked with their children about the Disney characters Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. I thought this was strange, because very few people could tell me anything at all about the personalities of these cartoon characters, other than what they looked like. In fact, I had seen a few old cartoons involving Donald and Mickey, and many of them left me unimpressed, bored or disturbed. Donald often flew off in a fit of anger. Not always, but often enough. Mickey didn’t have the anger problem of Donald, but people who “loved” him usually couldn’t tell me anything about him other than that he appeared in some cartoons, including “Steamboat Willie.” Is he an exemplary character? Very few of the people who love him seem to care. I see the same phenomenon today.

Tonight, I ran across this especially disturbing cartoon of Donald Duck, probably not one that you’ll see featured at Disneyland. I can hear it now . . . “Hey, kids, look! There’s a funny cartoon where Donald Duck commits MURDER!” I’m sure that most people don’t care that Donald committed murder. They “love” him no matter what he has done.

This cartoon goes to show you that people can think that they love a character without knowing anything at all about that character. We are really good at projecting, filling a knowledge void with good things (or bad things) about a character, a movie star or even a God. Case in point is Jesus, whom many people claim to know or love yet they know so very little about him. Or think of the people who insist that God loves us, yet they aren’t interested in knowing about the many genocides committed by the God of the OT. Or consider a more modern example of a person who many people “love” or “admire” without knowing anything about her: Sarah Palin, who I’ve previously compared to “Helly Kitty.” It turns out that many modern corporate characters are intentionally left empty, allowing the public to drum up their personalities in their imagination.

American Culture • Cartoons • Good and Evil • Psychology Cognition • Religion • hypocrisy • ignorance
Full Story
11
By Tony Coyle on August 04th, 2009

More GOP Astroturf?

I watched Rachel Maddow last night, and one of her segments focused on the disruption of recent Democratic Town Halls by ‘grass roots activists’. Her piece exposed the activists as following an agenda designed by a DC lobbying firm. In many ways this is worse that the Tea Party fiasco, since that was unfocused and generally laughable kookery. This, however, is targeted directly at health-care reform, and appears to be heavily funded by lobbyists for that industry (indeed, Rachel mentioned that some firms were sending ‘representatives’ to every state).

I also happened to see many of the same clips on Fox & Friends this morning (forced upon me in the hotel gym). F&F ‘reported’ the ‘protests’ as legitimate outpourings of anger against the ‘government’s plans for healthcare reform’.

I was surprised. Not!

Think Progress has more on the Lobbyist memo.

American Culture • Current Events • Fraud • Health • Politics • Uncategorized • hypocrisy • snake oil
Full Story
36
By Erich Vieth on August 01st, 2009

Bill Maher takes on the birthers

Bill Maher takes on the birthers , and he doesn’t tread lightly.

[There was once a video available, but it was taken down by Youtube due to copyright violations. If anyone can find a video available at Maher's own site, please let me know.]

Humor • Psychology Cognition • Religion • hypocrisy • ignorance
Full Story
9
Anti-abortion = anti-contraception?
By Erich Vieth on July 31st, 2009

Anti-abortion = anti-contraception?

One of the first posts I wrote at this site was an in-depth look at a “pregnancy resource center” which, to my dismay excelled at spreading untruths about abortion and did its best to discourage the use of effective birth control. What a strange thing, I thought, to discourage methods that would prevent accidental pregnancy which would, in turn, lower the abortion rate. Maybe fighting effective birth control (i.e., methods that don’t exclusive rely on just say no) would be good for repeat business at the “pregnancy resource center,” but it is terrible for the unwitting clients of these highly dysfunction centers.

Along comes this Alternet post by Christina Page, “Why the Anti-Choice Movement Is on the Verge of Civil War.” This is a fascinating look at the anti-choice movement’s big schism:

The question now is: ‘are you pro-life and pro-contraception, therefore trying to reduce the need for abortions, or are you pro-life and against contraception and you hope that people’s lives improve just by hoping it, wishing it so.’”

And consider this–I think that Page’s logic is impeccable:

It may come as a shock to most pro-life Americans, but there’s not one pro-life group in the United States that supports contraception. Rather, many lead campaigns against contraception. As [anti-abortion yet pro-contraception] Congressman [Tim] Ryan explained, “I think the pro-life groups are finding themselves further and further removed from the mainstream; they’re on the fringe of this debate.” Considering that the average woman spends 23 years of her life trying not to get pregnant, the anti-contraception approach depends on a scourge of sexless marriages or a lot of wishful thinking.

Where does this lead? If you aren’t for preventing accidental pregnancies, you can’t truly be anti-abortion. Yet that is the situation with all major anti-abortion groups. For example, none of them support Ryan’s legislation that would increase funding to make birth control available, promote effective sex-ed and provide financial incentives for adoption. Yet no pro-life group supports his efforts. Many groups staunchly oppose the use of real birth control (e.g., this one). On the other hand, most pro-life individuals support his efforts. Not surprising, in that 80% of pro-life individuals (90% of Catholics!) support the availability of effective birth control. Page presents many other eye-popping stats in her article.

The bottom line?

The greatest opportunity to reduce the need for abortion is to focus the 95% of unintended pregnancies that are highly preventable. The plan is simple: address the lack of and incorrect use of contraception.

This is a solution that virtually all individuals agree on. But all we get from “pro-life” groups is defiance. Therefore, pro-life groups (such as Democrats for Life) are wholly unaccountable to their constituents.

American Culture • Featured • Fraud • Reproductive Rights • Sex • hypocrisy • ignorance • snake oil
Full Story
Older Entries