Head-Spinning Political Shit!

[Greyson]

April 18, 2011

Vatican: Gay Rights Opponents are Real Victims Catholic bishop says the real victims are those who oppose the rights of LGBT people.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi reveals his subtle theological mind.

Joseph M. Palacios


Dr. Joseph M. Palacios is an Adjunct Professor of Liberal and Latin American Studies at Georgetown University and is the director of Catholics for Equality Foundation.

Last month the Catholic Church voiced strong opposition to a UN Human Rights Council resolution naming the protection of LGBT persons against discrimination and violence an official human right. The reason, according to Vatican representative Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, is that ending discrimination against gays, lesbians, and transgender persons would make those who oppose such human rights the real victims.

During a debate on the resolution (officially called the “Joint Statement on Ending Violence and Related Human Rights Violations Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity”) Tomasi unequivocally stated that the Council, the UN, and other state bodies cannot base law on sexual orientation since “the ordinary meaning of ‘sexual orientation’ refers to feeling and thoughts, not to behavior.”

In clarifying this, he stressed that if sexual orientation were to carry a behavioral component it would be a false premise, because such a definition would be contrary to natural law morality. According to this logic the recognition of LGBT identity would “undermine his/her ontological dignity” — meaning that since gays, lesbians, and transgender persons are by their nature “intrinsically morally disordered” claiming sexual orientation identity is, by nature, false.

Tomasi then likened homosexual behavior to pedophilia and incest: “But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples.”

To add fuel to the fire, he turned the debate away from violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity to “a disturbing trend in some of these social debates: People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behavior between people of the same sex… they are stigmatized, and worse—they are vilified, and prosecuted.” He never addressed the reality of actual violence (killings, torture, rape, criminal sanctions, violence, bullying) against gays, lesbians, and transgender persons taking place around the world.

Natural Law vs. Social Justice

Given that Tomasi is the leading spokesperson for the Catholic Church in international bodies, his words take on significant weight regarding the Church’s refusal to accept sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights categories. Since the early 1980s and the ascendency of Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), the moral theology of the Church has become increasingly locked into a framework of natural law anthropology, which is a logic based on male and female roles as pro-creators in the natural order of a biologistic social order emphasizing the nuclear family as the first cell of society.

This logic also simplistically views a natural order to the human body, meaning that each part of the body has a function that is connected to the whole person and humans cannot change these natural functions—particularly sexual functions. Natural law anthropology does not take into account anomalies in nature that might account for homosexuality and a variety of functional variations that can occur in different humans.

More problematic in Tomasi’s understanding of sexual orientation is the non-recognition of LGBT persons resulting in the Church’s negation of the social, psychological, cultural, and political realities in which they live. The fact is the perpetrators of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity do recognize this identity and base their anger, rage, hate, and revenge on people’s external identity and not on the “feelings and thoughts” of the victims. For the Vatican to not acknowledge this is a denial of social reality and the behaviors and attitudes reflective of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Prior to Ratzinger’s emphasis on natural law anthropology as foundational to contemporary moral and social issues, the Church’s social justice doctrine might have had tremendous influence in the creation of a positive Catholic LGBT human rights agenda. Such an agenda might emphasize the following dimensions of human life and pertinent social justice doctrine that have been developed since the first social encyclical, Rerum Novarum, of 1891:

• Social-Psychological: Dignity of the human person; Human development of the whole person
• Social Rights: Option for the poor and marginalized in society
• Basic Human Needs: Right to employment, housing, health care
• Cultural: Freedom of participation and association in civil society
• Political: Human rights protections; Right to migrate
• Religious: Religious freedom; Separation of church and state
Because the Vatican denies sexual orientation and gender identity recognition the above tenets of Catholic social justice doctrine cannot be legitimately actualized by priests, religious, lay leaders, teachers, catechists, and others within the Church itself. The natural law arguments of sexual morality and ethics have long been discounted by clergy and laity—especially natural law deductive arguments against birth control, in vitro fertilization, masturbation, male sterilization, stem cell research, same-sex civil marriage and adoption. Yet the longer Catholic tradition of connecting faith with reason and the doctrine of primacy of conscience has empowered many Catholics to look at the social reality of gays, lesbians, and transgender persons and connect the more compassionate aspects of the biblical tradition and Catholic social justice teaching.

Through a more comprehensive inductive logic Catholics use reason to see and analyze empirical injustice and then apply biblical principles and social justice teaching to the social context of injustice—a bottom-up approach to justice in the world. Not surprisingly, the international scope of the clergy abuse scandal has diminished the teaching authority of the hierarchy on sexuality. Catholics recognize that they do have gay, lesbian, and transgender brothers and sisters in their families, among their friends, in their communities and workplaces. Many recognize their difference and accept it in the same positive way they accept ethnic, gender, cultural, and age difference—as part of one’s external identity that should be respected and accorded full human dignity, even if one doesn’t fully understand the difference in one’s life.

Faith that Does Justice

Social justice-oriented Catholics have been able to utilize the positive aspects of social justice doctrine as a “faith that does justice” in civil society and politics, particularly through organizations like Catholics for Equality, Catholics United, Dignity, and Call to Action—as well as in their local parish and diocesan social justice ministries and in faith-based community organizing. Recent polling by Public Religion Research Institute shows that U.S. Catholics are the most progressive Christian body with 63% supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples and 69% believing that homosexuality is not a moral issue. The Human Rights Council’s recent statement was signed by all of the Catholic countries of Europe and Latin America. Civil marriage for same-sex couples has been ratified in the Catholic countries of Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Argentina, and Mexico. Acceptance of LGBT persons is not just an American phenomenon, it’s a broadly international one with a strong Catholic character.

Of course, is precisely these trends that are most disturbing to the Vatican, especially as younger Catholics around the world are even more accepting of homosexuality and the legitimacy of sexual orientation and gender identity than their parents and grandparents. Sadly, in the fight against LGBT rights the Vatican and the U.S. hierarchy is throwing its hat in the ring with some of the most powerful and well-funded voices of religious fundamentalism in the U.S., Africa, and Latin America.

There is an easy solution to the hierarchy’s increasing distance from the laity and ordinary clergy: just as the Church finally acknowledged slavery and racial segregation to be wrong and finally recognized full equality for black people, it can acknowledge that homophobia and sexual orientation discrimination and violence are wrong and recognize that sexual orientation and gender identity are social realities in our complex world. Otherwise, the Church lends legitimacy to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Church is not the victim.

[iamkeri1]

Politics have always been intrinsic to the Catholic religion, but is no means exclusive to them. The truly dangerous part of any religious involvement is the ability of that institution to "evil-ize" that of which they do not approve.

Of the prohibitions in Leviticus (Old Testament of the Christian Bible) in which the prohibitions against homosexuality are included, many are no longer considered necessary or important. Pork is not prohibited to Christians, nor are shellfish. We are not restricted to a small number of steps to be taken on the sabbath, and no one has been stoned lately for adultery (well at least not in Christian oriented nations.)

Yet, selectively, for reasons more political than religious, the horror over the "abomination" of homosexuality is still in fashion. Persecution of homosexuals (and other sexual variants) is still justified by various religious institutions. "God hates homosexuality" is a phrase you will find written on protestors signs at any gay function. Many other groups; disables folks, welfare recipients, unemployed people, homeless people, and poor people in general face religious predjudice which seeks to marginalize them.

Religion as politics is dangerous, damaging, and destructive.

Smooches,
Keri

[iamkeri1]

My head has been spinning again over this Congressman Weiner sex scandal (if you can dignify it with that name.) I have always liked the congressman. He is pretty liberal, and her doesn't mind getting into it with conservatives. When the story first broke I was pissed at his stupidity. And of course I figured his first version was a lie, so I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. So far the only thing to drop has been more like a fuzzy sock. The worst they have on him so far is the belief that he sent a picture of his pee pee out on the internet to adult women with whom he was already being overly friendly. He will neither confirm or deny, because it is rumored to be the picture of a rather large (and attractive?) peepee, and he doesn't want to give up the "rep". The Democrats are calling loud and long for his resignation (Of course the Republicans are doing the same, but they are the opposition, that makes sense.)

What the man did was stupid, but certainly not unusual. (nor illegal per se) Almost all of my straight women friends have received an unsolicited pee pee picture from some man they are communicating with online.

Personally I think he should not resign. We need the liberal vote in congress, and I don't want to lose this representative who can push the Republicans around (a little anyway.)

Anyone else have a take on this subject?
Smooches,
Keri

[MsDemeanor]

I'm pissed at the democrats and their race to see who can throw him farthest under the bus. It's between him and the people who voted for him. The only appropriate response for a democratic representative to "do you think he should resign" is "when Vitter goes then I might consider it". As for the new republican scum tactic of demanding that democrats give back/away money that Weiner donated to them, the only appropriate response to the republicans is "let's take a look at your donations first".

IMHO, of course.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

I'm pissed at the democrats and their race to see who can throw him farthest under the bus. It's between him and the people who voted for him. The only appropriate response for a democratic representative to "do you think he should resign" is "when Vitter goes then I might consider it". As for the new republican scum tactic of demanding that democrats give back/away money that Weiner donated to them, the only appropriate response to the republicans is "let's take a look at your donations first".

IMHO, of course.

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj

[iamkeri1]

I will go even further to say that I think the democratic response should be, "I (we) support Weiner. He is a Democrat. He is one of us. We all make mistakes. He has been legally elected by the people of New York. That's good enough for me (us). I (we) believe the situation will quickly be resolved in his favor. Now lets get back to solving important problems like balancing the budget without detroying medicare"

That's my 2 cents worth.
Smooches,
Keri

[BullDog]

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

She is a Republican of the type and kind I remember prior to the religious right buying off the GOP.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

The next time someone looks at you askance when excoriating the Democratic party for cowardice remind them of this--this isn't about principle. If it were about the principle of not cheating on spouses then the congress would be so completely denuded of men that both houses would put and observer in mind of the Michigan Women's Music Festival. This isn't even about political exposure because if the Republicans bring up Weiner's stupidity (and what he did was stupid, not the cheating but the thinking that he could get away with lying about the Twitter pics) the Democrats have six simple words they can use. They are: John Ensign, David Vitter and Larry Craig. No one called on them to resign and Vitter is still serving. No, this is simple cowardice. It's the only reason. What Weiner did is between him and his wife and has no bearing, what-so-ever, on his ability to conduct the Peoples' business.

Cheers
Aj

I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

I don't have any problems with sexting, phone sex, sexy or suggestive pics, etc. as many, many couples engage in this behavior. Consequently, doing so outside of marriage or a relationship could be a form of infidelity. Depends on the couple and how they set-up their relationship boundaries. On the other hand, it can be a very sexy way to interact with the one you love- especially when you have long absences. I am also tired of the right-wing “moral police” making this kind of sexual expression sound creepy and "abnormal." It isn't- but doing it as a high risk behavior that might ruin your marriage or get you fired, is the same as an alcoholic losing everything due to alcohol addiction. Again, I have no idea if Weiner is dealing with addiction. However, just his not thinking about the possibility that engaging with women online in social network sites COULD lead to interacting with someone under 18- IS risky behavior and not what I would expect of a someone with Weiner’s intelligence. Does not compute to me.

I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

If there is no truth to the interaction with a minor, I think this will blow over and Weiner will remain in his seat. 2012 is far enough away that this won't have some of the effects that the whole Mark Foley thing did on the GOP during a general election.

Yes, whatever he and his wife have determined within their marriage to be OK, is their business. But he is a public figure and they ought to know that there are right-wing zealots all over the internet just waiting to catch a liberal or progressive member of Congress in some kind of scandalous behavior. This is where I see a lapse in judgment.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by BullDog

Interesting perspective from a long time Republican politician in Florida:

http://www.chronicleonline.com/conte...-you-may-think

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

I agree unless there was contact with a minor and an exchange of sexual banter, etc. A story is floating around that one of the women he engaged in this behavior with is 17. If true, it really could blow up on a whole new dimension. Hopefully, not any criminal charges. From what I could discern from Wasserman-Schultz's appearance on Meet the Press yesterday, this new bit of information about a minor sent her to the side of asking him to resign.

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.

Yes, like MsDemeanor, I am outraged at any GOP member even saying one damn thing about Weiner while Craig & Vitter remain in Congress. And it does look like his actual district constituents remain behind him to represent them. They are the ones to decide if they want to re-elect him. He does their district business- if they are happy with his work, he will remain in office. Sounds like he wants to run for NY CMayor- have no idea if this would really hurt his chances. NYC is a liberal city- who knows.

Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.

I do think that there is a possibility of Weiner having a form of a sex addiction- and I get really tired of people not recognizing that this can really mess up someone's life- no matter what they do for a living. His entering a treatment program might be a political ply, but maybe not. And if he is dealing with a sex addiction and wants to work through it, I say good for him.

Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.

I think the Dems could have dealt with this differently and just stuck with "no comment." I didn't like that some were pouncing on Weiner before facts were uncovered. I keep reading tid-bits that some of this is due to Weiner not being all that well liked by his colleagues. He isn't much of a "team player". Actually, that is one reason I have always liked him- he would shake things up from a more progressive viewpoint.

Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.

I don't want to see the more progressive thinking House (or Senate) members leaving- Kucinich may be forced out due to re-districting and he is another very out spoken progressive member that we need in the House.

While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

This was a fantastic article! It doesn't articulate why I left the Republican party--to understand that one need do no more than look at how the GOP has increasingly used racist language and imagery to win election and how they have used anti-gay rhetoric and imagery to consolidate their political gains--but it does articulate why there is nothing that the Republican party, as currently constituted, could do to regain my vote.

As long as their electoral coalition is based upon nativism, xenophobia, coded appeals to racism, overt appeals to anti-gay bigotry, and theocratic leanings that give aid and comfort to the partisans of anti-science and anti-reason in society, the Republicans can't win my vote. The problem, of course, is that the very people who could get the GOP to rethink their current doom-ridden course have been expelled from the party. Cheers
Aj

They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

If Weiner sent a text to a minor then he's committed a crime and should, of course, resign and then be sent to trial. However, provided that he sent pictures to women who were of the age of majority in their location then what he did was his own private concern and the less I know about it the happier I'll be.



Two words, Rudy Giuliani---if Weiner runs for mayor, he'll be fine.



Certainly, bully for him if he is sex-addicted. I am, however, a little less sanguine about the claims of sex addiction for every third pol who gets caught with his pants down. Just once, to break up the monotony, I'd like to see a politician admit the mistake and move on. No invocation of sex addiction, no talking about how he needs to get right with this or that god, just "I messed up. I let down my wife, I'm sorry. I let down my kids, my apologies. I let down my constituents who trusted me to keep my nose to the grindstone and not make stupid mistakes like this--and this was a stupid mistake" and then move on with their lives. It probably won't happen in my lifetime but it would be nice, just to break things up a bit mind you.



Weiner is definitely the kind of liberal I think we need more of in elected office in that he is not afraid to actually stand up for something. It helps that he and I are on the same page on a number of issues.



While I have no desire for the Democratic congressional delegation to get smaller, Kucinich is not my favorite liberal. I find him unrealistic on foreign policy--not just that I disagree with him, I can disagree with someone on foreign policy but still think they are realistic--in that he seems to be dealing with a completely different species of humans on a completely different planet.

Cheers
Adrienne

Yes, sometimes Kucinich can be out there.

Yes, I think Weiner sticks to his guns and like that about him. And YES, to a point I agree with what you say about him just saying "I did it, I apologize"- which I wish he had just done at the start of the whole matter. But, I guess the behavioral scientist in me wants understanding of sexual addiction and its negative effects in our society. It seems that most people just pass it off as psycho-babble when it is a real addiction and can really ruin someone’s life. There is some good neuro-physiological work in human behavior concerning propensity for in risk taking that might shed a lot of light on sex addiction behaviors.

But, I do understand how annoying it can get that so many politicians and celebrities get caught in some scandal, then say "I'm sorry, I have an addiction and I'm going into treatment for it." It has become standard operating procedure for damage control- which contributes to the proliferation of the general population simply hearing "I'm going into treatment" as "the big gun consultants tell me this will work in getting the public to forgive me."

Thus far, the claims of his involvement with any minor seem to be false and quite possibly a product of the very same right-wingers that police social network sites in hopes of catching liberals and progressives at something they can project as immoral in some fashion. I’m sure liberal/progressive folks do the same thing to uncover any conservative/far-right folks, too. The internet has changed the campaigning in may ways- some good, some ugly. I would exercise the utmost caution as a politician online.

[iamkeri1]

Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I do think redistricting is a tool the Republicans willl use to their advantage (as do Dems when they are in control) Liberals will be targets whenever possible. Weiner is a target for being redistricted out of office. As he has plans to run for Mayor, I will not be too bothered by it. Things wax and wane. If Kucinich is districted out of office, it will feel to me like losing a good friend. During the Iraq war he used his one minute speech EVERY DAY to speak out against the war, to talk about the financial cost, and to call out the names of the service members who were killed. His voice is needed in Washington.
Smooches,
Keri

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by AtLastHome

They sure have been!

And all of the areas you speak of in terms of the overt appeals to anti-science and anti-reason rings so true for me. When Limbaugh went after Romney the other day because he believes that the state of our eco-system is in such a mess due to human beings and science indeed, demonstrates this, I just wanted to scream. I support Obama's re-election, so Mitt's conversion won't move my vote, but Liombaugh's power over the GOP is amazing.

Although, lately, Limbaugh's popularity seems to be decreasing in terms of his radio audience. Who knows, maybe some people in the GOP are getting their heads out of their butts.

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by iamkeri1

[B][FONT=Comic Sans MS][SIZE=3]Dennis Kucinich is a personal hero of mine and has been since he was the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio where my parents lived at that time. I do not find him unrealistic. To me he is a perfect example of a good old fashioned knee-jerk liberal. Also He is fiscally responsible.

I don't find him generically unrealistic, simply unrealistic on foreign policy (and then only in certain areas, I agree with him, for instance, on Kyoto). He seems, to my mind, to take the opposite position that some prominent conservatives do that also drives me nuts.

Some conservatives treat other international actors as if they are obliged to be insane or stupid or both and thus make of them cartoon villains. Some liberals treat other international actors as if they were nothing more than misunderstood lambs who, if not for either the United States or Western civilization, would be pacifists and only even know of violence because it has been imposed on them by the US and/or the West. Both are wrong and I find Kucinich to be indicative of the latter.

This is not to say he was wrong on Iraq (he obviously wasn't) merely to say that I do not find him credible on foreign policy. Domestically, I rather like Kucinich and I’m sure he was a fine mayor and that he does a good job for the citizens of his district. That doesn't mean I would vote for him for President, I wouldn't. In fact, I would want to make sure he didn't get the nomination just as I'm sure that even now there are people in the GOP who hope that Sarah Palin doesn't get their nomination.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Watching the Republican Presidential Debate on CNN. It's like watching some strange cult in action. The answer to every economic question is "get the government out". Romney, in response to the question of whether the government should be doing catastrophic disaster relief is talking about the private sector doing disaster relief. Imagine that. Disaster relief as a product.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Watching the Republican Presidential Debate on CNN. It's like watching some strange cult in action. The answer to every economic question is "get the government out". Romney, in response to the question of whether the government should be doing catastrophic disaster relief is talking about the private sector doing disaster relief. Imagine that. Disaster relief as a product.

Cheers
Aj

I like your use of cult here- they all are under a form of hypnosis, I think. Oh yeah, private sector disaster relief, Uh, huh....

The unemployment rate has got to fall during the next year. Just has to- and Obama's re-election people need to find a way to demonstrate how his policies have been responsible for what recovery we have had. I believe in the need for building our infra-structure for long-term economic stability, but see why so many people just can't wrap their heads around this when they have been out of work for months and months. At a certain point with so much distrust of all politicians no matter the party, I think many people will vote more about what they see as not working than future ideological policies that fit for them.

And those young college student voters that helped get him elected are now among the many that have degrees and can't jobs and owe student loans. Hopefully, the younger of this population will support him- I think there could be a high level of dissention among voters 18-22 during his 2008 election and his re-election.

Although, among POC I think he will carry a majority, especially Latino voters. But, I really see that this will be no shoe-in re-election for Obama. Which makes me nuts in some ways as he has gotten some very important policies through Congress that have had little or no movement for decades and decades.

The communication gap has got to change. I am just not as confident about his re-election as I once was. Bring on the "pictures of a thousand words" Re-Elect Obama people- bring it on NOW!!

[iamkeri1]

Dread
I so agree with you regarding reality based politics. This lack of reality at least on the part of the republicans is a direct outgrowth of bible based politics. The world was created in six days by god - four thousand years ago. Nothing happened 125,000 or a million years ago, so we can not use information from that long ago for comparison, BECAUSE THE WORLD DID NOT REALLY EXIST THAT LONG AGO!

There is no reason to conserve our natural resources or keep our air and water clean BECAUSE THE WORLD WILL END SOON IN THE APOCALYPSE!

God put humans in charge of the world. Anyone who wants to protect trees or who respects animals as fairly equal to humans is ridiculous and anti-god.

The poor will always be with us is another fave of the repubs, and they aim to have as many poor people as possible to assure that rich people get more money. As reflected particularly in the old testament, rich people are natural rulers, so it is god's plan that rich people get richer so they can be in charge.

Too bad they are ignoring "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," and "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."

Get religion out of politics.

Smooches,
Keri

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

I keep hoping that at some point some political consultant will realize that there is a large group of Americans who want what I will call, for lack of any better term, reality-based politics. By that I mean simply this, your ideology follows the dictates of reality and not the other way around. To take just one example, global climate change is an empirical question amenable to observation. Our policy should follow the dictates of the empirical questions.
To see how this works (and why I find the idea that we're still treating the propositions advanced by either side as if they are equally true maddening and baffling) let's deconstruct this a bit.

So, according to the theories advanced in climatology IF the Earth's climate is heating up THEN we should be able to make certain kinds of observations. Those observations include--but are not limited to: melting of polar ice caps at one or both poles, rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set, increased precipitation in certain places, more intense storms for those storms driven by either heat or water vapor or both (here think hurricanes and tornadoes). These are just a partial list. Now, do we have any observations that match the predictions (each of the items above is based upon actual predictions)? If so how're the predictions holding up?

Melting of polar ice caps? Check. In fact, the Arctic is set to be ice free during the summers within five years. Has this happened before? Yes. The last time we know, with any degree of confidence, that this happened was ~125,000 years ago. Prior to that you have to go back to a time when dinosaurs still walked the planet--dinosaurs. Rise in average temperatures with more record highs being set? In the United States, the 10 hottest summer periods on record have all been in the last 10 years. So we'll add that to the 'yes' column. More intense storms driven? Yes for *both* hurricanes and tornadoes. Now this should give us a serious moment of pause because hurricanes, particularly, are sensitive to temperatures in the oceans. The frequency of power hurricanes (3+) are increasing and the number of category 4 and 5 storms have increased. I have not taken the time to chart this out (yet, I probably will this summer) but I suspect that if one looks solely at cat 4 or 5 storms starting with the middle of the 20th century (have to see how far records go back) one would see a, more or less, random distribution of storms until the mid-seventies. Then the distribution will become less random. If one looks at the trend of the last 15 years I suspect (I'll let you know either way) that we'll see a clustering of 4s and 5s after 2000 that is far less random than the pattern from, say, 1950. More precipitation? Yes, again, we are observing this. In places like the Pacific Northwest we see a longer rainy season and in places where it gets a lot of precipitation in the form of snow, we are seeing more of that as well.

The snow problem brings up an issue with the cheeky games that pass as critical analysis in modern US politics. Note that I said we should see increased precipitation, not increased rain. That was deliberate. More moisture in the air will come down either as rain or as snow depending upon the season. People use increased snowfall to argue that 'global warming isn't happening because it snowed so much in Buffalo, NY last year'. This is like saying that my house can never get above 90 degrees because it hasn't been above 90 since last August.

I harped on this issue to give an idea of what I think we should be counting as evidence. In science if your theory is not in agreement with observation and there is reason to believe that the observations were accurate then it’s the theory that is wrong. Right now our politics is being driven by exactly the opposite ethic such that if your ideology is not in agreement with observation then it is your observation that is wrong, not your ideology (to be fair, neither liberals or conservatives are particular great on this issue but right now conservatives are worse than liberals on this in more areas--liberals are primarily not reality-driven about foreign policy and certain aspects of criminal justice policy, while conservatives are not reality-driven about a whole raft of policy issues).

It doesn't matter if you *believe* that cutting tax rates actually *increases* the amount of taxes that flow in. The actual revenues taken in by all government levels are an empirical question for which there is plenty of empirical data. If we look at the tax rates over time and compare them with actual revenues over time we should be able to determine if, in fact, cutting tax rates increases revenue (hint: the theory is not in agreement with observation). At the point that your ideology is found wanting by reality, you should modify it or, if necessary, abandon it completely (this is why, for instance, I find Marxists to be a little sad now). Failure to do so in a timely fashion should come with a high political price but, at present, it doesn't.

The party that figures out that reality-based politics are not just viable but a winner both electorally and ideologically will be in a very good position.

Cheers
Aj

[AtLast]

Empirical evidence driven political policy would be quite refreshing!