You know things are getting bad when i'm the sane one.
That's for sure. But how do you know?
DeLay's exit does little for cause of lobbying reform
Mercury News Editorial
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called it quits this week, days after his former deputy chief of staff pleaded guilty to corruption and conspiracy charges based on activities run out of DeLay's office. Last November, another DeLay protege pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe public officials. One of DeLay's ``dearest friends,'' convicted super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is singing louder than backups to the Rolling Stones in order to try to dodge more prison time.
With more indictments inevitable, you'd think that especially Republicans in Congress would want to get out ahead of the headlines and confront head-on the influence-peddling and decade of institutional corruption that are DeLay's legacy.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14276602.htm
by Harry Shearer
Found Object: DeLay on Hardball
READ MORE: Tom DeLay, Hillary Clinton
To see just how grateful Chris Matthews was for getting the Tom DeLay scoop, and what DeLay may think of Hillary Clinton, go here. Thanks to the usual source gods.
MATTHEWS: Hey thank you for calling me. It was a good thing for me, mostly.
DELAY: Oh really.
MATTHEWS: Oh of course it was. We got on the air as fast as we could....
[...]
MATTHEWS: Shannon [DeLay aide] told me, she called me, she said 'don't worry -- he's not calling in to complain'...
MATTHEWS: Have you seen this new focus group stuff on the candidates?
DELAY: No I haven't
MATTHEWS: It's great stuff. I'll send it to you -- it's great -- yeah it's great stuff. Hillary, John Kerry. All these guys, all these democrats, and how they do. And, uh, Frank Luntz did it...
DELAY: who I like
CM: ...and Hillary did not do well. Kerry did well.
DELAY: You're kidding.
MATTHEWS: I am NOT kidding. They didn't like Edwards -- they thought he was a rich lawyer, pretending to care about poor people...
DELAY: Too slick. Too slick.
MATTHEWS: ...and Hillary was a know-it-all.
DELAY: Nothing worse than a woman know-it-all
[...]
MATTHEWS: Thanks. I owe you one. I owe you two -- today and last night.
DELAY: No you don't.
MATTHEWS: No, I do.
DELAY: I appreciate it.
"So many minority youths had volunteeredÂ…that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself." --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War
gungasnake wrote:Roxxxanne wrote:What turned my stomach was Delays references to Jesus, God and "the Lord" in his farewell statement.
Delay remains the darling of the delusional right-wing "Christians."
If you think living in a Christian nation is hard, wait until America gets put under sharia law due to the activities of de-moker-rats and other leftists.
or under
martial law by right wing fascists with a firm belief of "Gott mitt Uns"...
gee, which one are we closer to now ?
Is there any more bizarre thinking than holding onto the idea that it's the Democrats (I think that is what the poor boy was trying to spell) and other leftists who want Sharia to be the law of the land.
Sharia, or Shariah, is a much closer cousin to the kind of lawbase the neo-conservatives of this nation would desire
- adherence to the belief in a Supreme Being,
subjugation of women to their husbands,
anti-abortion,
anti-gay,
anti-alcohol,
censorship of movies and the arts,
restrictions on the use of multiple political parties,
centralized and concentrated power in the executive branch.
If an unbiased observer were to watch and listen to the likes of George W, Dick Cheney and especially Bill Frist, he would be surprised to learn that we aren't already under a Christian Sharia.
Joe(Just give the Supreme Court a chance.)Nation
Roxxxanne wrote:What turned my stomach was Delays references to Jesus, God and "the Lord" in his farewell statement.
Delay remains the darling of the delusional right-wing "Christians."
Notwithstanding the insipid source of these comments, they are interesting.
In what context might these statements, uttered by a conservative, have failed to turn your ideologically sensitive gut?
Or actually by any politician using the "Lord's name." Did you see this by Gary Wills a couple of days ago??
It reminded me of the Christians I used to know.
Give it a serious read and make a serious comment. JN
April 9, 2006 NYT
Op-Ed Contributor
Christ Among the Partisans
By GARRY WILLS
Chicago
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills ?- that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion ?- imposing a reign of Jesus in this order ?- they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs ?- accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.
He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed ?- respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant."
Joe Nation wrote:Or actually by any politician using the "Lord's name." Did you see this by Gary Wills a couple of days ago??
It reminded me of the Christians I used to know.
Give it a serious read and make a serious comment. JN
April 9, 2006 NYT
Op-Ed Contributor
Christ Among the Partisans
By GARRY WILLS
Chicago
THERE is no such thing as a "Christian politics." If it is a politics, it cannot be Christian. Jesus told Pilate: "My reign is not of this present order. If my reign were of this present order, my supporters would have fought against my being turned over to the Jews. But my reign is not here" (John 18:36). Jesus brought no political message or program.
This is a truth that needs emphasis at a time when some Democrats, fearing that the Republicans have advanced over them by the use of religion, want to respond with a claim that Jesus is really on their side. He is not. He avoided those who would trap him into taking sides for or against the Roman occupation of Judea. He paid his taxes to the occupying power but said only, "Let Caesar have what belongs to him, and God have what belongs to him" (Matthew 22:21). He was the original proponent of a separation of church and state.
Those who want the state to engage in public worship, or even to have prayer in schools, are defying his injunction: "When you pray, be not like the pretenders, who prefer to pray in the synagogues and in the public square, in the sight of others. In truth I tell you, that is all the profit they will have. But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father, and your Father who sees you in hiding will reward you" (Matthew 6:5-6). He shocked people by his repeated violation of the external holiness code of his time, emphasizing that his religion was an internal matter of the heart.
But doesn't Jesus say to care for the poor? Repeatedly and insistently, but what he says goes far beyond politics and is of a different order. He declares that only one test will determine who will come into his reign: whether one has treated the poor, the hungry, the homeless and the imprisoned as one would Jesus himself. "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me" (Matthew 25:40). No government can propose that as its program. Theocracy itself never went so far, nor could it.
The state cannot indulge in self-sacrifice. If it is to treat the poor well, it must do so on grounds of justice, appealing to arguments that will convince people who are not followers of Jesus or of any other religion. The norms of justice will fall short of the demands of love that Jesus imposes. A Christian may adopt just political measures from his or her own motive of love, but that is not the argument that will define justice for state purposes.
To claim that the state's burden of justice, which falls short of the supreme test Jesus imposes, is actually what he wills ?- that would be to substitute some lesser and false religion for what Jesus brought from the Father. Of course, Christians who do not meet the lower standard of state justice to the poor will, a fortiori, fail to pass the higher test.
The Romans did not believe Jesus when he said he had no political ambitions. That is why the soldiers mocked him as a failed king, giving him a robe and scepter and bowing in fake obedience (John 19:1-3). Those who today say that they are creating or following a "Christian politics" continue the work of those soldiers, disregarding the words of Jesus that his reign is not of this order.
Some people want to display and honor the Ten Commandments as a political commitment enjoined by the religion of Jesus. That very act is a violation of the First and Second Commandments. By erecting a false religion ?- imposing a reign of Jesus in this order ?- they are worshiping a false god. They commit idolatry. They also take the Lord's name in vain.
Some may think that removing Jesus from politics would mean removing morality from politics. They think we would all be better off if we took up the slogan "What would Jesus do?"
That is not a question his disciples ask in the Gospels. They never knew what Jesus was going to do next. He could round on Peter and call him "Satan." He could refuse to receive his mother when she asked to see him. He might tell his followers that they are unworthy of him if they do not hate their mother and their father. He might kill pigs by the hundreds. He might whip people out of church precincts.
The Jesus of the Gospels is not a great ethical teacher like Socrates, our leading humanitarian. He is an apocalyptic figure who steps outside the boundaries of normal morality to signal that the Father's judgment is breaking into history. His miracles were not acts of charity but eschatological signs ?- accepting the unclean, promising heavenly rewards, making last things first.
He is more a higher Nietzsche, beyond good and evil, than a higher Socrates. No politician is going to tell the lustful that they must pluck out their right eye. We cannot do what Jesus would do because we are not divine.
It was blasphemous to say, as the deputy under secretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, repeatedly did, that God made George Bush president in 2000, when a majority of Americans did not vote for him. It would not remove the blasphemy for Democrats to imply that God wants Bush not to be president. Jesus should not be recruited as a campaign aide. To trivialize the mystery of Jesus is not to serve the Gospels.
The Gospels are scary, dark and demanding. It is not surprising that people want to tame them, dilute them, make them into generic encouragements to be loving and peaceful and fair. If that is all they are, then we may as well make Socrates our redeemer.
It is true that the tamed Gospels can be put to humanitarian purposes, and religious institutions have long done this, in defiance of what Jesus said in the Gospels.
Jesus was the victim of every institutional authority in his life and death. He said: "Do not be called Rabbi, since you have only one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, the one in heaven. And do not be called leaders, since you have only one leader, the Messiah" (Matthew 23:8-10).
If Democrats want to fight Republicans for the support of an institutional Jesus, they will have to give up the person who said those words. They will have to turn away from what Flannery O'Connor described as "the bleeding stinking mad shadow of Jesus" and "a wild ragged figure" who flits "from tree to tree in the back" of the mind.
He was never that thing that all politicians wish to be esteemed ?- respectable. At various times in the Gospels, Jesus is called a devil, the devil's agent, irreligious, unclean, a mocker of Jewish law, a drunkard, a glutton, a promoter of immorality.
The institutional Jesus of the Republicans has no similarity to the Gospel figure. Neither will any institutional Jesus of the Democrats.
Garry Wills is professor emeritus of history at Northwestern University and the author, most recently, of "What Jesus Meant."
Wow.
Powerful piece. I am bolstered by Wills' straightforward and unflinching insistence that Jesus wasn't the corrugated icon we have pablumized and served up to us on a regular. I would be interested to know if Wills' has any spiritual beliefs, or if - for instance, he sees Jesus simply as a significant historical figure.
I am reminded by this piece of the way that the shameless right has attempted, and had some success at, co-opting the message of Martin Luther King. they've shorn him of his original radicalism - flayed from his image all vestiges of the fiery anti-war rabble rouser and antiestablishment agitator, and left us with a flaccid, one-dimensional caricature who dutifully spouts "not the color but the content", whenever they pull his string.
Yup - Jesus - the Jesus I long to meet and still marvel to hear tales of - was a badass.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Setanta wrote:Whomever you may refer to with the name "Sentanta," i do hope they get the point of that idiotic emoticon . . .
Setanta vs blueflame
Stalin vs Trotsky
Coke vs Pepsi
Curley vs Lou Costello
Gotta love it.
Goebbels issues another press release!
Quote:Powerful piece. I am bolstered by Wills' straightforward and unflinching insistence that Jesus wasn't the corrugated icon we have pablumized and served up to us on a regular. I would be interested to know if Wills' has any spiritual beliefs, or if - for instance, he sees Jesus simply as a significant historical figure.
I am reminded by this piece of the way that the shameless right has attempted, and had some success at, co-opting the message of Martin Luther King. they've shorn him of his original radicalism - flayed from his image all vestiges of the fiery anti-war rabble rouser and antiestablishment agitator, and left us with a flaccid, one-dimensional caricature who dutifully spouts "not the color but the content", whenever they pull his string.
Yup - Jesus - the Jesus I long to meet and still marvel to hear tales of - was a badass.
Amen. And I mean that.
Wills has written a lot of what critics call contrarian Christianity but which I think is closer to being exactly what Christ was talking about. Jesus didn't arrive here to make the comfortable more comfortable, he came to make the comfortable uncomfortable and the uncomforted loved. 'Tain't easy.
The most difficult commandment of all is Love One Another.
It is no wonder to me at all that Mohammed Ali and Malcolm were drawn to Islam. Christianity had left the building in the hands of folks like Tom Delay, Bill Frist and George W. Bush.
Joe(peace. Still possible.)Nation
Joe
You are on the mark! The commandment to Love one another is indeed right up there with the only other commandment Jesus gave to the Apostles: Love God with your whole heart and soul.
