| |
 |
Monday, December 20, 2004 |
Dazzling 'Em With Bullshit In His Native Tongue
...
Dazzling 'Em With Bullshit In His Native Tongue
... : "Dazzling 'Em With Bullshit In His Native Tongue
Martian
QUESTION: You've made Social Security reform the top of your domestic agenda for a second term. You've been talking extensively about the benefits of private accounts. But by most estimations, private accounts may leave something for young workers at the end, but wouldn't do much to solve the overall financial problem with Social Security.
And I'm just wondering, as you're promoting these private accounts, why aren't you talking about some of the tough measures that may have to be taken to preserve the solvency of Social Security, such as increasing the retirement age, cutting benefits or means testing for Social Security?
BUSH: I appreciate that question.
First of all, let me put the Social Security issue in proper perspective. It is a very important issue. But it's not the only issue -- very important issue we'll be dealing with.
I expect the Congress to bring forth meaningful tort reform. I want the legal system reformed in such a way that we're competitive in the world.
I'll be talking about the budget, of course. There's a lot of concern in the financial markets about our deficit, short-term and long-term deficits. The long-term deficit, of course, is caused by some of the entitlement programs -- the unfunded liabilities inherent in our entitlement programs.
I will continue to push on an education agenda. There is no doubt in my mind that the No Child Left Behind Act is meaningful, real reform that is having real results. And I look forward to strengthening No Child Left Behind.
Immigration reform is a very important agenda item as we move forward.
But Social Security, as well, is a big item. And I campaigned on it, as you're painfully aware, since you had to suffer through many of my speeches. I didn't duck the issue like others have done in the past. I said, 'This is a vital issue and we need to work together to solve it.'
Now, the temptation is going to be, by well-meaning people such as yourself and others here, as we run up to the issue, to get me to negotiate with myself in public. To say, you know, 'What's this mean, Mr. President? What's that mean?'
I'm not going to do that. I don't get to write the law.
I'll propose a solution at the appropriate time.
But the law will be written in the halls of Congress. And I will negotiate with them, with the members of Congress. And they will want me to start playing my hand. 'Will you accept this? Will you not accept that? Why don't you do this hard thing? Why don't you do that?'
I fully recognize this is going to be a decision that requires difficult choices. Inherent in your question is do I recognize that? You bet I do. Otherwise it would have been done.
And so, I just want to try to condition you. I'm not doing a very good job, because the other day in the Oval, when the press pool came in, I was asked about this -- the -- a series of questions -- a question on Social Security with these different aspects to it. And I said, 'I'm not going to negotiate with myself. And I will negotiate at the appropriate time with the law writers.'
And so, thank you for trying.
The principles I laid out in the course of the campaign, and the principles we laid out at the recent economic summit are still the principles I believe in. And that is: nothing will change for those near or on Social Security, payroll tax -- I believe you're the one who asked me about the payroll taxes, if I'm not mistaken -- will not go up.
The -- and I know there's a big definition about what that means.
Well, again, I will repeat, don't bother to ask me.
Oh, you can ask me, I can't tell you what to ask. It's not the holiday spirit.
(LAUGHTER)
It is all part of trying to get me to set the parameters, you know, apart from the Congress, which is not a good way to get substantive reform done.
As to personal accounts, it is a judgment essential to make the system viable in the out-years to allow younger workers to earn an interest rate more significant than that which is being earned with their own money now inside the Social Security trust.
But the first step in this process is for members of Congress to realize we have a problem. And so for a while, I think it's important for me to continue to work with members of both parties to explain the problem. Because if people don't think there's a problem, we can, you know, talk about this issue until we're blue in the face and nothing will get done.
And there is a problem. There is a problem because now it requires three workers per retiree to keep Social Security promises. In 2040 it will require two workers per employee to meet the promises. And when the system was set up and designed I think it was like 15 or more workers per employee.
That is a problem. The system goes into the red.
In other words, there's more money going out than coming in in 2018. There is an unfunded liability of $11 trillion.
And I understand how this works. You know, many times legislative bodies will not react unless the crisis is apparent, crisis is upon them. I believe the crisis is. And so, for a period of time, we're going to have to explain to members of Congress the crisis is here.
It's a lot less painful to act now than if we wait.
QUESTION: Mr. President, on that point, there is already a lot of opposition to the idea of personal accounts, some of it fairly entrenched among the Democrats. I wonder what your strategy is to try to convince them to your view.
And specifically, they say that personal accounts would destroy Social Security. You argue they would help save the system. Can you explain how?
BUSH: If Saddam Hussein refuses to disarm, we will form a coalition of the willing and we will disarm Saddam Hussein. Next question?
"
(Via Hullabaloo.)
3:36:38 PM Permalink
|
|
Blessed Are Those With Persecution Complexes?
Blessed Are Those With Persecution Complexes?: " A recent Frank Rich column described the ‘ever-growing drumbeat that Christianity is under siege in America.’
‘The only evidence of what Pat Buchanan has called Christmas-season ‘hate crimes against Christianity’ consists of a few ridiculous and isolated incidents, like the banishment of a religious float from a parade in Denver and of religious songs from a high school band concert in New Jersey,’ writes Rich. ‘Yet the hysteria is being pumped up daily by Fox News, newspapers like The New York Post and The Washington Times, and Web sites like savemerrychristmas.org. Mr. O’Reilly and Jerry Falwell have gone so far as to name Michael Bloomberg an anti-Christmas conspirator because the mayor referred to the Christmas tree as a ‘holiday tree’ in the lighting ceremony at Rockefeller Center.’
Examples of Christian Persecution Complex syndrome are cropping up everywhere. Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, a Republican pollster named Gary Lawrence whined that
It was a year of the most hateful political campaigns that I have seen in 36 years as a political pollster. The diatribes of 2004 ridiculed, demeaned and trivialized religious belief and attacked those who defer to a higher power, as opposed to those who believe that human intellect is the highest hope for mankind.
And yet, despite these attacks on their beliefs, too many Christians hesitate to express a simple greeting rooted in the second-most important event in Christian history — one that carries with it the promise of peace on Earth and goodwill toward all. Isn’t it time to take a stand?
Excuse me, but who was it that ‘ridiculed, demeaned and trivialized religious belief and attacked those who defer to a higher power'? I honestly don’t remember. Was it somebody on network or cable television? A newspaper editorial? A candidate running for office? Some other national spokesperson? Who was it that did this? Please, give me an example.
I will even offer a reward, like maybe a free autographed copy of my book (was that product placement, or what?) to anyone who can give me a real example of someone who ‘ridiculed, demeaned and trivialized religious belief and attacked those who defer to a higher power’ in the context of this year’s political campaigns.
On the web I run into the occasional curmudgeon who genuinely hates all religion, but I didn’t notice these people taking a visible role in the recent election campaigns. Yet Mr. Lawrence feels persecuted, nonetheless.
This morning I found this in Slate:
So it’s official: The new gauntlet-throwing catch phrase from the right is ‘Merry Christmas’ (can’t you just see Eastwood saying it from behind the barrel of a gun?). Apparently, uttered in the right context—like on Fox News—those four syllables no longer convey simply holiday cheer, but a red-state/blue-state, my-god-is-better-than-yours challenge: I’ve got your ‘happy holidays’ right here, buddy. This trend has been emerging all over the television dial: Last week on Scarborough Country, there was Pat Buchanan’s distinctly testy-sounding ‘Merry Christmas’ in answer to a guest from the American Atheists association who wished him a happy ‘winter solstice.’ And this week, there was George W. Bush’s brief speech at the end of the Christmas in Washington variety special. (Throughout which I waited in vain for one politically correct, non-Christian number: Mandy Patinkin doing ‘Dreidl, Dreidl'? Queen Latifah rapping about Kwanzaa? C’mon, TNT, other religions can be cheesy too!) When the performances were through, Bush took the stage to thank the singers (who included LeAnn Rimes, American Idol ’s Ruben Studdard, and the teen pop star JoJo) and remind the nation that the purpose of the season was to ‘remember the humble birth of our savior.’ Right, and to reach out to Americans of all faiths, in our country’s great tradition of separation of church and … ? Mr. President? Are you finished already?
Ah, I see The Plan. By claiming victim status, the Xtians have given themselves permission not to acknowledge or honor other religious traditions. Payback, y’know.
Just one more example, from Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog – check out this birthday ecard for Jesus –
Still, some reject – despise your name
With such intensity;
In spite, they celebrate instead,
Their Secularity.
So, the only reason a person wouldn’t celebrate Christmas is to spite Jesus.
(Note to Jesus: I hope You are not bothered by my Seventh-Day Adventist kinfolk who don’t do Christmas stuff, either, because it’s not in the Bible. They’re nice people, Lord. They mean well. Don’t smite them in Your wroth, or whatever it is You do when You’re pissed.)
I’ve argued elsewhere that when religion becomes an excuse to hate and oppress others, it’s no longer religion, but tribalism. But if you really want to understand how so many people can be outraged by imaginary oppression, I recommend the book The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism by Karen Armstrong. Religious scholar and historian Armstrong writes that all fundamentalisms – Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc. – have much in common.
They are embattled forms of spiturality, which have emerged as a reponse to a perceived crisis. They are engaged in a conflict with enemies whose secularist policies and beliefs seem inimical to religion itself. Fundamentalists do not regard this battle as a conventional political struggle, but experience it as a cosmic war between good and evil. They fear annihilation, and try to fortifytheir beleaguered identity by means of a selective retrieval of certain doctrines and practices of the past. To avoid contamination, they often withdraw from mainstream society to create a counterculture; yet fundamentalists are not impractical dreamers. They have absorbed the pragmatic rationalism of modernity, and under the guidance of their charismatic leaders, they refine these ‘fundamentals’ so as to create an ideology that provides the faithful with a plan of action. Eventually they fight back and attempt to resacralize an increasingly skeptical world. (Armstrong, The Battle for God (Ballantine, 2000), p. xiii)
‘Fear is at the heart of fundamentalism,’ Armstrong writes. ‘The fear of losing yourself.’ This is true of Islamic fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden as well as our homegrown types. Liberals cherish tolerance, democracy, pluralism, and civil liberties; fundamentalists fear these values as weapons of (their) annihilation.
It is important to recognize that these theologies and ideologies are rooted in fear. The desire to define doctrines, erect barriers, establish borders, and segregate the faithful in a sacred enclave where the law is stringently observed springs from that terror of extinction which has made all fundamentalists, at once time or another, believe that the secularists were about to wipe them out. The modern world, which seems so exciting to a liberal, seems Godless, drained of meaning and even satanic to a fundamentalist. [Armstrong, ibid., p. 368]
Osama bin Laden gave himself permission to wipe out the World Trade Center and the Pentagon because he saw himself as a victim of western (Christian) oppression. And the moral is, Beware of righteous people with a persecution complex. (And don’t miss The Fundamentalist Agenda.)
I know many of us long for The Rapture, when the fundies will all disappear and leave the rest of us in peace. But I believe I’m correct to say that, historically, most great atrocities began with a festering persecution complex. Eventually those in power give themselves permission to destroy the hated ones in their midst because, you know, they oppressed us first. Thus the Holocaust, for example.
If I believed in a literal Satan, I’d swear Satan was speaking through Bill O’Reilly. Actually, that would explain a lot.
This persecution complex stuff is not Jesus’ fault. Jesus specifically counseled his followers not to bear grudges. See, for example, Matthew 5:22– ‘I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.’ (Also in Matthew 5 is all that stuff about turning the other cheek and loving your enemy that Christians don’t like to listen to, either.)
It’s tempting to develop a persecution complex of one’s own when one sees oneself about to be persecuted. But fight it. We liberals are better than that. As an antidote, I recommend you clip & save these words of the Buddha, from The Dhammapada, and read them whenever you find yourself getting annoyed at the fundies.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with an impure mind
And trouble will follow you
As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world.
Speak or act with a pure mind
And happiness will follow you
As your shadow, unshakable.
‘Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me.’
Live with such thoughts and you live in hate.
‘Look how he abused me and hurt me,
How he threw me down and robbed me.’
Abandon such thoughts, and live in love.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
You too shall pass away.
Knowing this, how can you quarrel?
Amen. And Merry Christmas.
Update: ‘Why Mix God and Country at Christmas?’
"
(Via the american street.)
11:23:26 AM Permalink
|
|
© Copyright 2005 Steve Michel.
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Zappa on Crossfire.