In Which the Czar Muses

Two probably unrelated political thoughts.

First, this Elizabeth Warren nonsense. The Czar understands that Massachusetts voters don’t seem to care that she may or may not have Cherokee ancestry: they seem to be zeroing in on whether she can do the damn job. Good for Massachusetts. Of course, the real question is whether Harvard should drop her like a hot rock for lying on her paperwork. One may argue that Warren could simply have been mistaken about her ancestry—things like this do happen from time to time—but there does seem to be no evidence that she was mistaken at all. She seems to have made it all up, and continued to fabricate this nonsense until, seemingly, she began to believe it herself. Point: this is Harvard’s problem about academic honesty. And it is a doozy, with serious consequences either way.

Second, this Joe Biden nonsense. Call the Czar an optimist at your own risk, but lately the mainstream media seems hell-bent on exposing Biden for the dimwitted tool he really is. Yes, from the Left. The Czar can only conclude that the Left wants Obama to dump Biden off the ticket and go to Clinton for the obvious reasons:

1. Clinton is a stalwart Progressive, and Biden just says whatever nonsense whips through his head. In short, the media see Clinton as the more serious politician. Biden is a car wreck.
2. Clinton is the only Obama administration member with anything like a successful track record, even in the last three years. Obama? Squat. Biden? Even less. Yeah, they see her as ammunition against the GOP.
3. A little buyers’ remorse from them. Yeah, maybe Clinton would have been the more successful President than the thin-skinned Narcissus of Petulance. But rather than confess this regret, the media merely hope to encourage a change they like better.
4. The media must be recognizing that historical trends in polling seem to be moving like clockwork to a decisive Romney victory, and dammit, Biden is just too good at helping the GOP when they most need it.

The Czar believes, as do many of us on the Right, that Obama is not going to admit a mistake of this magnitude, and is not going to replace Biden no matter how painful the result. Given the large number of people sharing this view, why does speculation continue about a Clinton-for-Biden switch? The Czar concludes: it actually comes from the Left.

Romney's neither a Keynesian, nor a fool.

Dr. J. stumbled on this over at the Esquire Blog. How he got there, he's not sure. Perhaps a twitter link. Nevertheless, someone named Charles P. Pierce, who is clearly a Democrat partisan, is demonstrating his ignorance of both politics and economics.

He picks up on an exchange during Gov. Romney's Time interview with Mark Halperin, a journalist who has aggravated individuals on both the left and the right for various and sundry things he's written and said.

Let's go to the tape:

Halperin: I want to get to a lot of those, and let’s go to spending, which is a big thing for you, one of the bases of comparison – you say you’d cut spending a lot more than the President has. And like most governors I know, you can get down in the detail. A lot of people don’t know that about you; you can really get your arms around a policy issue and go deep, so let’s talk about spending. You have a plan, as you said, over a number of years, to reduce spending dramatically. Why not in the first year, if you’re elected — why not in 2013, go all the way and propose the kind of budget with spending restraints, that you’d like to see after four years in office? Why not do it more quickly? 

Romney: Well because, if you take a trillion dollars for instance, out of the first year of the federal budget, that would shrink GDP over 5%. That is by definition throwing us into recession or depression. So I’m not going to do that, of course.

So, Mr. Pierce takes umbrage with the first couple of sentences of Gov. Romney's answer.

He quips:

Now, as it readily admits, the blog's knowledge of economics is limited to the blog's first law of economics — Fk The Deficit. People Got No Jobs. People Got No Money — and it also believes that most professional economists arrive at their conclusions by reading the entrails of doves and cutting up goats on a rock, so it may be wrong here, but didn't Romney, in saying that, pretty much blow up the entire rationale for over 30 years of Republican economics right there? Cutting government spending will throw us into a recession or depression? No Christmas cards from the Ryan household this year, Willard. 

Here is what he cut out of Romney's answer to Mr. Halperin.

What you do is you make adjustments on a basis that show, in the first year, actions that over time get you to a balanced budget. So I’m not saying I’m going to come up with ideas five or ten years from now that get us to a balanced budget. Instead I’m going to take action immediately by eliminating programs like Obamacare, which become more and more expensive down the road – by eliminating them, we get to a balanced budget. And I’d do it in a way that does not have a huge reduction in the first year, but instead has an increasing reduction as time goes on, and given the growth of the economy, you don’t have a reduction in the overall scale of the GDP. I don’t want to have us go into a recession in order to balance the budget. I’d like to have us have high rates of growth at the same time we bring down federal spending, on, if you will, a ramp that’s affordable, but that does not cause us to enter into a economic decline.

So Romney's plan is both smart economically and politically.

Economically it is wise in that it cuts government spending in a way that doesn't diminish the GDP as the cuts are offset by private sector growth. It further cuts the government's role moving forward at a rate that is based on private sector gains. As the private sector heats up, there is less of a need for government spending. Any 'pain' caused by government spending cuts will be less likely to be felt. There will be screaming banshees to be sure, however. Ask Scott Walker.

Politically it is smart because if he cuts government spending too fast, then total GDP declines, which with regard to real economic impact is may not be a big deal, as most of the Obama administration's spending (e.g. Solyndra, various and sundry kickbacks to union friends) appears to be an economic divisor rather than an economic multiplier. but it is a huge politically.

Remember, the definition of a recession is 'at least two straight quarters of negative economic growth.' If Mr. Romney enjoyed any negative economic growth during his time in office the left will be screaming like a bunch of wounded harpies.

So, lets do a thought experiment. If Mr. Romney cut government spending too fast (5% in the first year, then even left it at 0% the remaining time) and we saw 0% growth in the first year and 3% growth each year thereafter, the GDP would look something like this:


You can see a recession leading right up to the midterms. Cutting spending too fast is a political liability and modern Americans and the politicians they elect would prefer the easy thing to the right thing, which is a bitter pill.

Mr. Romney's economic plan may make recovery easier to swallow, by avoiding some, if not all of this initial negative growth. It sounds like it would turn us in the right direction with a little bit of time. Dr. J. believes though that the slope of his growth line will be less steep than it would be with a tougher initial tack, but if taking his time is what will actually permit our economy to be set in the right direction than he remains a far more palatable choice then President Obama who is hellbent on making us the next Greece.

An Eye on the Electoral Count

Dr. J.'s buddy, Jamie Jeffords, at the Eye of Polyphemus, writes today regarding potential Blue-state pickoffs for Mr. Romney. Now, Dr. J. quibbles about they way he defines a blue state (a state that went for Obama in 2008, rather than a state that over the last few election has been firmly blue or red, but like Dr. J. said, that's a minor point).

He did make this interesting point about Virginia that got Dr. J. to worry.

I am cautiously optimistic about Virginia, but those blue-ish DC suburbs in the northern part of the state are loaded with self-loathing affluent progressives who feel obligated to guide the rest of the red state yokels whom they believe do not know any better. On a less snaky note, Gov. Bob McDonnell’s organization handed Mitt Romney the primary. It may put him over the in the commonwealth in November. McDonnell will noty (sic.) be Romney’s running mate, but a Cabinet post is his for the taking.

Those affluent blue-ish DC suburbs are might become bluer in the near future given the tax increase that affluent Montgomery County Marylanders are facing, making it a tougher battleground in the future. However Dr. J. doesn't expect the state to enjoy a demographic shift due to an exodus from navy blue Maryland in time for November. That being said, you never know.

Go read the rest of Jamie's predictions. He did a great job prognosticating the Republican Primaries (nailing the trifecta almost every time) so his analysis of the battleground states is worth reading.

Oh yeah, the bonus babe of the day is Catwoman.

Careful What You Wish For

The New York Times Sunday Review has a strange editorial that seems completely diconnected from reality. Are you shocked?

Entitled “Bring Back the Real Maverick,” the piece covers how Senator John McCain (R-2008) is interested in a law that requires political donors in amounts of $10,000 or more to reveal their names to the public.

McCain explains that his reasoning all revolves around the revelation of which unions are the biggest donors. Whatever—the Czar thinks that private political contributions should stay private as a matter of, well, privacy. Not to worry: the bill has almost no support from either party in the Senate.

And the editorial board thinks that is a shame. As they put it:

Americans need to know who is for disclosure and who wants to hide the truth about big donors and misleading ads.

Really, now? Really?

Didn’t you help elect the Full Disclosure President, who has been listed as among the most manipulative and secretive presidents ever? And let us count up the negative and misleading ads and see which party’s candidates is exploting them. Hint: it isn’t the party of the guy openly running on his record.

Gay Intolerance

The Gormogons like to play compare and contrast in order to reach a higher sense of understanding.

Yesterday, the Czar excoriated the vile Charles Worley for his know-nothing rant about gays. In response, the Czar received what he considers a highly typical response from another thinker on the right, FJR of Virginia:

Charles Worley is an embarrassment to the pulpit and to the Baptist faith. I watched the short clip of his performance (I can’t call that preaching because it certainly wasn’t God inspired). I sat in stunned silence as I listened to his hate filled rant. I’m opposed to gay marriage and do not approve of the homosexual lifestyle but I love my gay/lesbian friends and would never treat them with anything other than love and kindness. Worley is a moron and he is as bad as any fundamentalist Islamist. He certainly isn’t preaching any Christian doctrine that I’m familiar with. God hates homosexuality but he also hates ignorance so maybe we should lock Worley up until he learns how to interpret scripture correctly. Or maybe Worley is a homophobe because of some suppressed tendencies. Who knows but your eloquent description of him as a jackass hits the nail on the head.

This is a perfect summation, and the Czar changed not a word of it. She blasts the hatred of the man, thoroughly repudiates his venom, and points out quite clearly that while the whole over-the-top lifestyle is unacceptable to her, she still dearly loves people, gay or otherwise.

Now let us contrast to this to our dear friend Madeleine McAulay, long-time FotG, who wrote largely the same opinion on her Faith, Hope, and Politics site. She cares little for same sex marriage, and theorized that President Obama was wrong to claim, for political points, that he does support it.

She received extremely obscene messages, including a couple of death threats, from folks on the Left. Not that her age has anything to do with her political beliefs—it doesn’t—but she makes no secret of her youth, and the blatantly sexually offensive nature of the comments cannot be excused: people are threatening a high school girl, which makes these messages very serious in their nature.

The Czar has said it before, many times, and feels compelled to say it again. The gay and lesbian community loves to badger the religious, the conservatives, and the right for all these imaginary grievances. But they knowingly overlook the most egregiously offensive source of their own problems: themselves.

The gay community needs to purge itself as fully as possible of all these hateful, pissy, dramatic, bullying, threatening, and poison-spewing lunatics that totally destroy the logic behind their pleas for tolerance. Trust someone who knows: “Tolerate us or we’ll kill you” is not effective marketing.

Likewise, we get hate mail, too, whenever we write about some bizarre event in the gay community and elect to use a photograph from some outrageous parade, in which participants are provocatively dressed or bedazzled in some over-the-top fashion. It seems that we promote stereotypes by doing so. As always, check the URL on those photo sources: they come from the gay community. If the gay community wants the rest of us to take you seriously, then you need to—once again—find the people trashing your image at these events and ask them to leave. They are the ones promoting it.

Another contrasting example. Tea Party members have quietly and carefully asked protest participants to (a) stop wearing outlandish 18th Century costumes and (b) leave rifles and visible firearms at home. Why? Because it detracts and ultimately humiliates the message. When you have members who make a crass joke out of your message or provoke or worry non-members, you need to police it.

Or, you could send death threats to wonderful high school juniors for worrying openly about the motives of her President. Which one, would a reasonable and undecided person think is more effective?

The gay community will continue to have a hard time enjoying the full freedoms they expect of this country, if they allow so many of their own members to bully, harrass, intimidate, threaten, or terrorize non-members, and likewise if they allow some members to promote the rest of you as debauched, lunatic, and sexually deranged freaks.

Gay and lesbian readers should pause and ask themselves if they really feel they have accomplished much in the last 20 years. If not, how else do you account for it? The diminished influence of the religious right? The static conservative majority who expresses, in poll after poll increased acceptance? The open inclusion of gays in popular media?

Or is it something within your own ranks?

The coy southpaw from Chappaqua, NY

Yesterday on the Fox News Special Report Online post-show broadcast, Dr. Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training, by the way, intimated that Obama wouldn't replace our gaffetastic Vice President Biden with Secretary Clinton for the 2012 race. His reasoning was that Obama is too narcissistic. That being said, he made the caveat that he wasn't using his psychiatrist's cap.

In his own words:

“Obama, I think, can never bring himself to do something very large, like this, which would show that he needs the Clintons, particularly Hillary, to win.” 

“I just think for Obama to show himself as being weak and needing this to win is more than he can ever muster,” Krauthammer added. “So I think the odds are low. I could be wrong — rarely, but it’s happened.” 

Dr. J. agrees with Dr. Krauthammer's assessment (Dr. J. got an A in Psychiatry, back in medical school, BTW.) but would temper it, and you will see why, below the video clip.



A few weeks ago, before Mother's Day actually, Dr. J. was at the local Hallmark Store buying insanely marked up cards from this Catholic family owned formerly small business. You see, Dr. J. cares enough to send the very best.

While he was there, he was taken by the conversation a loud, brash, outspoken 55ish year old woman was having with one of the cashiers. The woman had a New York accent, Long Island, specifically, and was clearly a Democrat. The thrust of her conversation was that she was hoping that President Obama would dump Biden for Hillary Clinton in the VP slot. The last time this topic was in the news was about that time.

Now Dr. J. is one of those people who can't keep his mouth shut. Dr. J. is also one of those people who is sufficiently skilled at keeping himself on topic (when speaking, anyway) that he isn't going to offend the listener with his interjection. He tends to stay away from land-mine like interjections.

Dr. J. raised the point that despite the dreams and fantasies of those Democrats who for whatever reason were putting their hopes and dreams in Hillary Clinton to be the first woman President, it would be a mistake for Obama, or any president to replace his Vice President, unless the VP disgraced the office (and being a bonehead doesn't meet that threshold), or became incapacitated and unable to fulfill the obligations he is charged with. Spiro Agnew resigned under charges of bribery back in 1973, after his re-election. That's the sort of threshold for replacing a VP that Dr. J. is talking about.

It was discussed in the media whether or not Dan Quayle, Al Gore, and Dick Cheney should be replaced during the re-election race. Nothing ever came of it.

You see, in the modern era, the first decision any presidential candidate makes is who his vice president will be. By replacing that person the president istacitly saying that his first decision was a wrong decision. In so doing he loses a lot of credibility with voters whether or not he or the voters consciously realize that or not.

So Dr. J. agrees with Dr. K. that Obama is a narcissist and that replacing Biden would make him look weak, but he also would like to add that those are true, true and unrelated.

Obama is certainly the most narcissistic individual to hold the office of President in the modern era, but even the most self actualized executive would not make that mistake for the very same reasons.

E.J. Dionne and Maureen Dowd: Roman Catholicism's Fifth Column

Hey, E.J! You dropped your thirty
pieces of silver! Don't worry. MoDo
will get them for you.

'Puter guesses portraying Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd as Roman Catholicism's fifth column is a bit inflammatory, and perhaps a tad inaccurate.  Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd are more appropriately described as quislings.

E.J. Dionne continues his epic run for the title of the most self-deluded, self-proclaimed Catholic of all time with his column today in the Washington Post. Mr. Dionne opines that the Catholic bishop's law suit aimed at overturning
Obama's contraception mandate is a political stunt, specifically intended in bad faith to target President Obama's reelection prospects.

'Puter told you yesterday that this was coming.  We see that Ms. Dowd and Mr. Dionne are united in pressing the same message: the Catholic Church is politically motivated and should be ignored not only by the secular world, but by Catholics themselves.

The Left is Hell-bent on destroying the Catholic Church's moral authority, as the Catholic Church is one of the few remaining cultural institutions with large enough influence to take on the government.  Further, the Church's moral authority, while severely diminished, is still far superior to that of the government, no matter which party's running it. It is apparent to 'Puter that, based on the Left's behavior, liberals view the Catholic Church as the last foe to be vanquished in order to usher in the unending reign of their false god, Big Government.

And who better to take on the Catholic Church? Why, two revered liberal columnists who call themselves Catholic, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What evidence, you say? The evidence is plainly in their thoughts and in their words, in what they have done and what they have failed to do.  We know Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd by the company they keep.

So, long way around, but back to Mr. Dionne's column. As is typical, Mr. Dionne presents his readers the world as he wishes it were, rather than the world as it is.

Let's start with this howler, that's at the end of Mr. Dionne's piffle, but is demonstrative of his delusional state: "For too long, the Catholic Church’s stance on public issues has been defined by the outspokenness of its most conservative bishops and the reticence of moderate and progressive prelates."

Oh. Yes. Well.  If you say so, Mr. Dionne. 'Puter guesses that we should just ignore the past 50 years of post-Vatican II hippie horseshit that's been crammed down the faithful's throat by disobedient and misguided prelates.  Everything from supine (and likely supportive) bishops ignoring former governor Mario Cuomo's famous "sure, I'm pro-abortion publicly, but you should see how pro-life I am in my private life" weasel out to the bishops ignoring the homosexual bath house mentality prevalent in the 1970s seminaries.  This leaves aside the travesty that is the current American Catholic Mass (and it's uniquely horrible music).

To hear Mr. Dionne tell it, the conservative Catholic bishops are on a Sherman's March through the Catholic state, razing, raping and burning doctrine, dogma and catechism on their way to the sea. Garbage, Mr. Dionne.  If you actually believe this, 'Puter'd be shocked.  In fact, 'Puter's betting you know the truth is the exact opposite of your claim.  America's conservative Catholic bishops are clawing back the Faith from the hands of those (like you) who have gleefully used it for your own political purposes for years.

Let's continue.  Mr. Dionne's argument essential argument is that the bishops pending challenge to ObamaCare's contraception mandate is an ill-advised political ploy.  Mr. Dionne bases this argument on the following "facts":

1. Lots of American dioceses chose not to join the suit. 

This fact, while true on its face, tells us exactly nothing. Mr. Dionne intends this fact to mislead his readers.  It is likely that the dioceses' attorneys determined to use fewer, more powerful and better known Catholic institutions as plaintiffs to maximize impact.  This is a normal and accepted litigation strategy.  Let the stars shine.  How many non-Catholics would say, "Jeez, if the diocese of East Podunkville is fired up, then there really must be something wrong!" Right. No one.  Now substitute for "diocese of East Podunkville" "the University of Notre Dame." Or "the Archdiocese of Washington." Or the "Archdiocese of New York."  Right.  A whole lot more non-Catholics are familiar with these institutions.  They're the traditional backbone of American Catholicism.

2. Some bishops in California think the suit is premature.

Well, perhaps these bishops are lawyers.  'Puter doesn't know.  What 'Puter does know is that if you wait until any regulation is implemented, it's too late.  You've lost.  Momentum is on the government's side at that point, and judges are far less inclined to intrude. Further, 'Puter's betting that the unnamed and named California clerics are likely in Mr. Dionne's quasi-Catholic wing of the Church.  These folks are comfortable with the "come as you are, take what you want" cafeteria Catholicism prevalent since Vatican II.

3. Liberal Catholics have kept quiet about their concerns.

Horseshit. Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd, not to mention every Catholic and non-Catholic shrill harpy talking head on MSNBC, have droned on, day after endless day, about how the Catholic Church has been taken over by the conservative wing, and dagnabit, they're out to get Obama and all of us enlightened Catholics. You know, enlightened. As in those Catholics like Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd who choose to ignore the uncomfortable or unpopular or inconvenient Church teachings.  The little ones like transubstantiation and the consistent ethic of life.

4. Mr. Dionne doesn't like the Fortnight for Freedom.

Well then.  That settles it. Mr. Dionne's word is law, after all.  And, really, he must be correct.  A religious organization pushing back against a government dedicated to overturning longstanding and fundamental American freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights? And not in some lame Amendment like the Second Amendment that only Tea Party crazies like, but in the uber-cool First Amendment that protects the rights of the press and individuals to speak their minds.  People just like Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd.  It's madness if we let people protect their own rights and freedoms. After all, Mr. Dionne tells us we have a perfectly good government to do that for us.

5. Mr. Dionne doesn't like the Vatican's smackdown of the hard left ladies who lunch and otherwise form the membership of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.

Of course Mr. Dionne hates the Vatican's smackdown of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  It's an obvious sign of the Vatican's rededication to enforcing its doctrine at all levels, whether ordained or lay.  The LCWR has been far afield of Catholic doctrine for a very long time, much as Mr. Dionne and Ms. Dowd have been.  Of course nominal Catholics don't like being told to shape up and shut up, or get the [heck] out.  It's got to be disconcerting, particularly when you've been liturgically dancing to the beat of a different folk group drummer for going on 50 years now.  But too danged bad.  Rules are rules, and should be followed.  And if the good sisters don't like it, they should go Protestant.  Despite 'Puter's appreciation of the opportunity afforded by Mr. Dionne to revisit his smackdown of the LCWR, 'Puter fails to see the relevance of this point.

6. A single bishop cried to a noted leftist Catholic rag that he really and for true doesn't like the bishop's lawsuit.

America is a well-known hard left Jesuit rag, famed for putting forth positions at odds with the Church. And so to is Bishop Stephen E. Blaire, the cited bishop of Stockton. Further, the Bishop may have an axed to grind with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops'  hierarchy, as he lost the a recent election to chair an important committee because of claims he ignored the sexual abuse of children by priests under his supervision. 'Puter finds this interesting, as Mr. Dionne has been known to excoriate his claimed Church for ignoring child sexual abuse by priests. But, any port in a storm, right Mr. Dionne?

7. The lawsuit is political.

Of course it is.  By nature, the lawsuit must be.  The government charged with protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help them God is attempting to ignore the Constitution's mandates itself.  What the heck else did Mr. Dionne expect it to be? The lawsuit happens to be against the Obama Administration because they're the only administration stupid enough to ignore the religious freedoms of a mainstream religion big enough to punch back.  Whatever one thinks of Obama's contraception mandate, one must admit it was colossally stupid for the Obama Administration to take on the Catholic Church.  This one decision may spell the end for Obama's presidency.

8. Some bishops are going to ignore the Fortnight for Freedom.

So what?  The Catholic Church is a big tent, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has no authority to force a bishop to take any action whatsoever within his bishopric.  Only the Vatican may do so. What exactly does this have to do with anything?

9. Catholics were united against the contraception mandate in February. Why damage the unity?

Catholics were united against ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate in February because conservative Catholics shamed liberal Catholics into it.  Liberal Catholics couldn't even pretend that requiring Catholic institutions to pay for employees' birth control wasn't a gross violation of the First Amendment.  Upon realizing that they'd massively screwed up and alienated an important constituency, the Obama Administration, aided and abetted by liberal "Catholics" like Mr. Dionne, set about creating a fig leaf so that liberal Catholics could claim the issue was resolved.  The Obama Administration's compromise, the one Mr. Dionne cites for its Solomonic wisdom? The compromise is to permit religious organizations an additional year before imposing the exact same mandate on them.  Some compromise.

10. The Great and Wise Obama fixed everything with the compromise anyway, so why are you complaining?

If you can't see E.J. Dionne for what he is after reading today's column, then you have actively chosen to ignore fact.  Mr. Dionne is a willing shill for the Obama Administration posing as a Catholic. Mr. Dionne is also an apologist for all nominal Catholics who want to ignore the Church's millenia old doctrine, dogma, catechism and Magisterium and still claim they are in any meaningful way Catholic.

Cardinal Wuerl summed it up quite nicely in his column in yesterday's Washington Post.  You should really read the whole thing.  The bishops' lawsuit is not anti-Obama.  It is pro-freedom. The suit is dedicated to re-establishing the endangered (yet bedrock) principle that people in America are free to worship as they see fit, without government interference. That's it. Nothing more.  Here's some choice words the good Cardinal.  'Puter defies you to find error in them:

The Catholic Church has not picked this fight. We are simply trying to defend our — and other faith groups’ — long-standing rights. While the administration wants to regulate religion, we are not trying to force anything on anyone. Allowing religious organizations to serve the public does not violate the separation of church and state. Conscripting us into advancing government objectives against our conscience does.

This struggle is all about the Bill of Rights. You don’t have to agree with the Catholic Church and its teachings to agree that the government shouldn’t force us to violate our beliefs. People of all faiths or no faith should cherish the right to follow one’s conscience. We do not want to tell the government what it must do. We simply ask the same of them.

This is exactly why Mr. Dionne, Ms. Dowd and their comrades on the Left hate the Catholic Church and work to discredit it from within and without.  The Catholic Church stands four-square opposed to government diktats. A shorter synopsis of the Cardinal's column might read, "Get out of our way, leave us the Hell alone, and let us get on with our work, as we've done for 2,000 years." The Left can't tolerate independence.  It's dangerous to government supremacy when people think and act for themselves, even collectively, without government control.

Again, it's time to pick sides.  Who do you stand with? Mr. Dionne and his leftist compatriots arguing for government control of every area of your life? Or do you stand, like 'Puter, with the Catholic Church and those of us who believe in limited government and personal responsibility.

Choose.

That Is A Tough One

This about sums it up - remember all the liberals are touting all the wonderful policies and programs that Obama led that saved the economy:

Space Cowboy - Venn Diagram Edition

Mine, Mine, Mine, All Mine.

Having attended Saturday evening Mass this past weekend, GorT and Mrs. GorT were enjoying a leisurely Sunday morning by watching some Sunday morning news shows over breakfast.  One show had Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) on to discuss his sponsorship of the "ex-PATRIOT" Act.  While others have compared it to the Soviet-style exit taxes and Grover Norquist compared it to Nazi, Rhodesian and South African tax schemes, I found something else disturbing about the Senator's discussion.

During some of the open dialogue with the hosts, Senator Casey threw out some estimate of the amount of taxes Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin which was in the millions of dollars and claimed that without such legislation, the United States would have to "make up" that lost tax revenue.  Excuse me?

This is a key area where liberals and conservatives differ.  Liberals will focus on the rich investor, creator, leader, or founder of a company and decry how much they earn and how little they pay in taxes.  Conservatives will laud the same people for taking that risk and growing our economy by investing capital, time, and other resources and creating - not "creating or saving" - jobs.  Currently it had created somewhere north of 3,500 jobs.  It is looking to populate a Menlo Park, California campus with over 9,000 employees in the next five years.  Not only is that growth for Facebook, but the businesses in and around Menlo Park will see an economic uptick.

To you liberals out there, this is 3,500 employees now paying income taxes to the United States.  As they exercise their options and sell their shares, they will be paying capital gains taxes to the United States.  This is creating revenue for the United States.  Revenue the country did not have prior to the existence of Facebook.  So instead of being greedy and targeting the rich investor who is leaving, why not focus on creating an atmosphere that encourages more investors, founders, and entrepreneurs to create businesses here in the United States?

Unfortunately, the hosts did not pick up on that tidbit.  Mrs. GorT did and almost spat our her coffee screaming, "it wasn't here to start with, idiot!!"  We need to pressure these liberal idiots.  Letting something like that slide only allows the continuation of the envious warfare that they are engendering in this country.  We need to stop allowing politicians to take deficit cutting credits for costs that weren't going to be there to start.  We need to focus on creating and improving the business environment for American job growth.  Revamp education like we've said we've needed to do for the last 60 years.  Overhaul and simplify the tax code.  Review and streamline federal regulations - keep appropriate safeguards in place, but eliminate ones that are restricting job growth.  And stop allowing politicians off the hook for soundbite answers that make no sense.

Cultural Catholics, Liberal Columnists, President Obama and Other Pretenders

The last few days have seen a rash of rationalizing columns from the liberal nominally Catholic nomenklatura.  And yes, 'Puter means to use "rash" in its most nasty, suppurating, syphilitic form to describe the detached ramblings of Maureen Dowd (here, in Sunday's New York Times; here in today's NYT) and E.J. Dionne (here, in today's Washington Post).

Before 'Puter tears down Ms. Dowd (a/k/a MoDo, the PoMo Ho) and Mr. Dionne's columns, he has this question for his faithful minions.  What's with the sudden plague of liberal, nominally Catholic liberal elites trashing the Holy Mother Church? In 'Puter's feeble mind, there are two answers:

1. Liberals, especially their lackeys in the media, are terrified that The Great And Powerful O is blowing his reelection. See, e.g., Michael Gerson's competing column in yesterday's Washington Post, here.

2. Liberals want to discredit the Church's moral authority in order thereby to discredit the Church's criticism of Obama's contraception mandate specifically and ObamaCare generally. See, e.g., Archbishop Donald Wuerl's explanatory column in today's Washington Post, here.

To liberals, it's a win-win.  Return their secular savior to the White House and smash the greatest perceived obstacle to his institution of heaven on Earth (i.e., the overweening liberal nanny state), the Roman Catholic Church. 

'Puter's got some thoughts on these topics, in excruciating detail, but he's short on time at the moment.  Perhaps 'Puter will return to the topic at a later time.  Then again, if 'Puter gets to the vodka first, a return to this topic, let alone any coherent topic, is unlikely.

What's the Area Code for R'lyeh?

Mailbag - Sport Shorts

Operative FJR writes in:

I loved the way Lil Resident and Lady Jaye worked out their differences and there wasn’t any major adult intervention. The adults served as reinforcement to appropriate behavior. It is nice to know that there are parents that care about raising well adjusted children that are learning to work out their differences. 

This is all tongue in cheek but I have to say that I agree with Lady Jaye on the issue of dancing not being a sport. Technically it’s a performing art. A very athletic and demanding performing art but not really a sport. Just because something is athletic and subject to competition doesn’t default it to sports status. I don’t consider figure skating or diving or rhythmic gymnastics sports. I know, I know, they are sports according to the International Olympics Committee but IOC considers Curling a sport. Curling is a game like billiards or bowling or golf. In my world “sports” require the participant to reach their anaerobic threshold at some point during competition, winning must be decided by non-subjected scoring or a clock and participants are required to wear uniforms as opposed to costumes. I’m sorry but if you have to wear make-up to participate then you are a performing artist. Baryshnikov was an amazing athlete but he was a performing artist. Please understand that just because your chosen activity is not a “sport” that doesn’t mean you aren’t an athlete. 

Now I would never argue this point with Lil Resident. She obviously takes her dance very seriously and works very hard at her craft and that is to be applauded. She is welcome to define her athletic endeavors however she likes. 

Hope she continues to win competitions. 

Sincerely, 

Operative FJR

Dear Operative FJR,

Dr. J. hears what you're saying. You, and Lady Jaye are technically correct, but Ms. Jaye doesn't have the sophistication to understand the difference between competitive performing arts and sport and was not thinking before she spoke, and then digging in without the rhetorical ability to make her case. The Lil Resident simply didn't like that Lady Jaye was marginalizing (or as Professor Mondo would call it, negging) her principal extracurricular activity given the success that she's achieved in it.


Dr. J. also agrees with you in that he would never argue this point with Lil Resident either...

Bible Study

Charles Worley is a tremendous jackass. Worse, he thinks he’s funny.

Worley is some schmuck who wants to imprison gay people behind an electric fence in anticipation that they die out. He is an evil, hateful person and he knows it. But he sleeps at night because he thinks the Bible tells him so.

And no doubt he can point to all sorts of verses in the Bible that back up his claim. Fundamentalists love to do that—the Bible, you see, is inerrant when you agree with it, and of course open to interpretation when you do not. Odd that the more people attend Bible study, the less they seem to get it.

Worley, for example, wants gays dead because of something he read in Leviticus. Of course, he probably wolfed down a few slices of bacon with breakfast, even though Leviticus prohibits ingestion of pork (11:7). See, but he likes bacon. So the Bible is merely a suggestion there. But Worley is an evil tool who hates gays, but then the Bible backs him up. See how easy that game is to play? He sees no problem with this, and almost certainly has no clue what a pathetic non-representative of Christianity he is.

His flock should repudiate him accordingly, for the Bible is also pretty clear about what to do with horrible people who claim to profess the word of God though they have hatred in their hearts. See, the Czar can play the Bible game all he wants, too. It is so easy that it is said even the Devil can quote scripture. Where do you think Worley fits into that scheme?

Now if only the Left would repudiate equal jackasses like Jeremiah Wright. But too many liberals actually agree with him; thank goodness conservatives police their own.

Dr. J.'s Comic Book Gay-dar

Dr. J. used to work in a comic book store as a youth, so this story is up his alley.

Dr. J. always found sexual themes to be extraneous to a good comic book story. The Dark Knight Returns and Watchmen, which were more grown up comics back in the 80s would have been just fine were they PG-13 rather than R, so to speak. When it came to romance, the tame 1950s approach approved by the Comics Code Authority was just fine with him. The so-called marriage equality crowd would argue that anytime a man and a woman have any sort of public relationship, it is making a statement, therefore it is no different to want balance and show same-sex couples in public.

That being said, it comes as no surprise that Northstar (who came out of the closet 20 years ago) is finally getting married. It isn't like the X-Men/Mutants storyline hasn't been a civil rights metaphor since the 1960s or anything.

Whatever.

Given that DC and Marvel always try to outdo each other, it also comes to no surprise that DiDio, and the gang at DC are going to out one of their 'major' characters.

Parenthetical: In Dr. J.'s opinion isn't running DC very well as they've had to do multiple Ret-connings during his tenure as opposed to the first 50 years which culminated in a single Crisis on Infinite Earths. Indeed, Gormogon friend Jonathan Last takes DC to task over at the Weekly Standard, and Dr. J. will not try to recapitulate his argument here, as he does it so well. Just go read it when you are done reading this.

The big question for Dr. J. is who is coming out of the closet, lair, Batcave, or Fortress of Solitude?

Unless they're looking to do another re-boot next year, they have to be pretty thoughtful about this.
Seriously, it has to work, otherwise you are going to piss off the readers, both gay and straight.

The DC Universe is pretty hierarchical with regard to its heroes. This is the hierarchy as Dr. J. sees it. He's left out many heroes but you get the point:

The A-List - The Holy Trinity
Superman
Batman
Wonder Woman

The B-List
Aquaman
Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)
Flash (Barry Allen)
Nightwing/Robin (Dick Grayson)
Green Arrow
Black Canary
Martian Manhunter
Hawk-man
Hawk-girl

The C-List
Kid Flash - Wally West
Flash - Jay Garrick
Speedy - Roy Harper
Green Lantern - Guy Gardner
Green Lantern - John Stewart
Green Lantern - Kyle Raynor
Plastic Man

So who is it going to be?

If Dr. J. were picking, it would have to be at least a B-lister, or it is a cop-out. There has to be, however, plausibility. They are rebooting history, but it has to feel right.

DC wouldn't want to offend the target audience, so the hero has to be a character without a problematic history. Plastic Man, the reformed criminal, and Speedy the former heroin addict aren't going to fly. It would portray the homosexual hero as less than ideal. Someone might cry foul.

Dr. J. would also avoid the A-List. While one could make a case for Batman, the whole faithful ward thing would become a little creepier than it already is. And before you say !!!Eleventy!!!!!, Dr. J. isn't saying that gay folk can't adopt. He is just saying the who Batman/Robin gay lover thing has been done to death. Wonder Woman is an Amazon. Again, that's too easy, and the scuttlebutt is they're going for a guy anyway. Gay Superman? Forget it. People had a problem with him walking the Earth like Cain in Kung Fu last year.

On the B-List, Aquaman, the Flash and Green Arrow aren't good choices because they're married and their wives are major characters in the DC Universe. It would come across as doing it to do it, and not thinking it through. You really start screwing up continuity if one of them were come out of the closet. Martian Manhunter is a shapeshifter and asexual to begin with, so he's no good. Hawk-man and hawk-girl are minor players on the B-List, really they're C-List, anyway.

That brings us to Nightwing, the original Robin, Dick Grayson.

Nightwing is perhaps the most highly regarded character by his peers within the DC Universe. He's basically 'Nice Batman.' He builds bridges and alliances. He's the mortar and the glue when the crap hits the fan. He knows everyone and has a relationship with everyone. He is a likable character to his peers. He is a good person without any appreciable baggage. He's basically the Kevin Bacon of the DC Universe.

In addition his (hetero)sexuality has never really played a role in who he is, or in truly major plot lines over the last 75 years. Sure you can talk about his relationships with Batgirl and Starfire, but they never stood the test of time as the iconic relationships like Clark/Lois, Aquaman/Mera, Barry/Iris, Oliver/Dina, the whole weird Bruce/Selina thing, or even Hal Jordan/Carol Ferris. So, if he was rebooted as gay, it really wouldn't be transformative from a canon standpoint.

So Dr. J. predicts DC will out Nightwing.

Why?

He fits the narrative best. He's B-List going on A-List. He doesn't bring personal negatives to the table. He doesn't have pre-existing romantic entanglements of any significance. Everyone likes him, and everyone will still like him after the big reveal.

The truth is, the reaction the audience will have, both gay and straight will be the same as the one Aunt Harriet would have, "It's about time he's admitted it to himself...we knew all along."

Liberals...

In Which The Lil Resident Stands Her Ground...

Kids fight. Sometimes it's a fist fight, and sometimes it's an argument.

Last Friday, the Lil Resident related a tale of an argument she had with Lady Jaye, one of her athletically inclined classmates at the Jedi Academy.

"So, Lady Jaye said to me, 'Dancing's not a real sport.' I told her, of course it is. And she said that it was not."

"What did you do then?"

"I asked Master Jocasta Nu her opinion, and she agreed with me, but Lady Jaye still said she thought dancing wasn't a real sport."

"Ok..."

"So I said, listen, I practice six hours a week. We go to regional tournaments five times a year and last summer we went to Chicago for a national tournament where my team won and were declared [she inserted finger quotes here] National Champions. We won a trophy taller than me or you. Have you done that? Trust me, it's a sport."

At this point, Dr. J. couldn't help but chuckle to himself. Lady Jaye is generally a sweet girl, and Dr. J. likes her a lot, but sometimes doesn't think before she speaks. More than once when Dr. J. was coaching her in basketball he had her running laps because of her lack of a filter. Each time, her parents Duke and Scarlet, made sure she apologized.

Dr. J. was very proud that the Lil Resident stood her ground and very effectively made her point, rather than backdown and let her friend get away with what she felt was upsetting declaration.

What Dr. J. wasn't happy about was the fact that she busted out her inner brag-hag to make her point. Subtle doesn't work on Lady Jaye, so he understood why she did it, but he did advise her in the future to avoid using such a rhetorical nuclear option, unless absolutely necessary, because one does not want to win the battle only to lose the war (or a friend).


It was fascinating how different parties involved responded to this kerfuffle:

• Dr. J. and the Lil Resident discussed it Friday on the drive home from school without giving it a second thought.
• Unbeknownst to Dr. J., Master Jocasta Nu, the Lil Resident's teacher discussed the situation with Master Windu, the Dean of the Younglings at Jedi Academy and then sent Duke and Scarlet, an email and made a follow up phone call to discussed how she was concerned that this had the potential to be construed as bullying.
• Duke and Scarlet, who are wonderful people, and have worked hard with Lady Jaye to think before she speaks, were mortified. The talked to her about it over the weekend. Scarlet also called Mrs. Dr. J. on monday morning.
• Lady Jaye apologized to the Lil Resident first thing Monday morning, much to Lil Resident's surprise. Unprompted, Lil Resident told Lady Jaye she forgot all about it, accepted the apology and perhaps shouldn't have rubbed her championship in Lady Jaye's face.
• Mrs. Dr. J. was blindsided by all of this on Monday, spent much of the phone conversation trying to make Scarlet feel better about everything, because the Lil Resident really wasn't bothered by the while thing. She fortunately wasn't mad at Dr. J. for forgetting to mention it on Friday.

He appreciates Master Nu's desire to get advice from her boss when she was concerned for the potential for bullying, and Master Windu for advising her; Duke and Scarlet, who are great parents working hard with their little girl on her filter, and their willingness to take ownership; Mrs. Dr. J. for spending an hour trying to make Scarlet feel better; but his biggest kudos go to Lady Jaye and the Lil Resident, because, ultimately they worked it out themselves.

The point is, that while the media has been spending a great deal of time talking about bullying, the kids themselves tend to do a good job policing themselves. Dr. J. is especially thankful that the Jedi Academy clearly gave these kids the tools to do it themselves. The rest of us, as you can see played largely ancillary and reinforcing roles, but the greatest role we had was in giving them the proper tools to handle it themselves.

Do Not Ask For Whom the Class Bell Tolls

The Czar is wont to make predictions, and today he makes another one.

Society has basically had enough with goofy leftism. 2010 saw a major political swing back toward something resembling common sense, although clearly there is much work to do. Movies and entertainment have begun a subtle but definite shift back toward fun and value-based themes. K-12 education has started to creak and groan as teachers’ unions cave. Economics is finally acknowledging austerity and free market capitalism beats out centrally planned maladaptations of Keynes every time. Overall, the pendulum is shifting back as Americans say “Enough!”

The last, and perhaps most dramatic, Leftist bubble to burst is next—and this one will be a doozy. We speak, of course, of academia.

Therein you find a true bubble: theory-based academics—the reviled professional intellectual class—who chat among themselves, ignore the constant stream of misses, dismiss or even ridicule competing observations by their students, and who continue to churn out masses of graduates with little grasp of reality and few means to survive it.

By quashing dissent through browbeating, humiliation, or administration, the academics live happily in a world with only the slightest grasp of what life is. Arguments concocted of pure fallacy beat out pleas for a posteriori examples. The constancy of a decades-old textbook is much preferred over the ephemeris of actual news.

And why not? Academia is where most of the mess started in the United States. Fascism in the 1910s and 1920s, Progressivism in the 1920s and 1930s, Social Justice in the 1930s and 1940s, College Socialisms in the 1940s and 1950s, Liberalism in the 1950s and 1960s, Radicalism in the 1960s and 1970s, Political Correctness in the 1970s and 1980s, Activism in the 1980s and 1990s, and the beginning of Welfare Statism since then—wherein college tuitions have increased by hundreds of percents.

As the Mandarin said, there is no ceiling on college tuition as long as the government continues to pour unlimited amounts of money into academia. And with the Democrats now advocating a near- or wholly-complete subsidy of college educations (as a right; by 2030, pizza on Fridays will be a federal right as the Left continues to confuse rights with luxuries), there will be no cap on what a college can charge for tuition, room, and board—many insitutions will literally have no idea what their operating costs are, but will simply write blank checks signed by Uncle Sam.

The Mandarin also noted the other day that we are at a tipping point, socially: eventually, and we are seeing it with the Occupy morons, academia will need to explain why they are mass-producing impoverished students. Throngs of puppetry science majors, graduates in Mayan poetry, critical thinkers of The Simpsons, and Hindu-Kush calligraphy masters are leaving schools with massive debt and no short-term or long-term job prospects.

This bubble has to pop. Schools are already aware that important people are scanning their balance sheets to determine where all that money goes, since the quality and variety of educational opportunities has not increased; neither have salaries. Where is it all going?

The universities already know how to transform students; the new generation of students entering colleges are a cold, cynical and bitter lot, who have the capacity to argue and challenge left wing nonsense. But the colleges have dealt with worse in the 1950s and early 1960s—these kids can be turned.

But the economics are killing them. A high school graduate going into factory work can earn more in the next ten years than the average college graduate. College diplomas, though nice (and the Gormogons admittedly have probably a dozen, combined), are no longer essential. Soon they will not even be necessarily desirable. And the whole system will come crashing down.

Unless some changes get made: tuitions need to drop dramatically. Course offerings need to drop in quantity and diversity back to more traditional Arts and Sciences. The Sciences need to return to fundamental hard sciences, while the Arts need to teach critical thinking again (as opposed to wry commentary and acrimony). Academic freedom needs to return, rather than enforced cadre building disguised as “pro-social justice organizations.”

But that is all a pipedream: academia will do no such thing because the warning signs remain unheard and unheeded in their dystopian Ivory Towers. As a result, look for the system to topple before it can self-correct.