Buffett must be the GOP's thorn in the flesh

Warren Buffett Ready to Take Republicans' Tax Challenge

By Rana Foroohar, Time

Warren Buffett is ready to call Republicans' tax bluff. Last fall, Senator Mitch McConnell said that if Buffett were feeling "guilty" about paying too little in taxes, he should "send in a check." The jab was in response to Buffett's August 2011 New York Times op-ed, which made hay of the fact that our tax system is so unbalanced, Buffett (worth about $45 billion) pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Senator John Thune promptly introduced the "Buffett Rule Act," an option on tax forms that would allow the rich to donate more in taxes to help pay down the national debt. It was, as Buffett told me for this week's TIME cover story, "a tax policy only a Republican could come up with."

Still, he's willing to take them up on it. "It restores my faith in human nature to think that there are people who have been around Washington all this time and are not yet so cynical as to think that [the deficit] can't be solved by voluntary contributions," he says with a chuckle. So Buffett has pledged to match 1 for 1 all such voluntary contributions made by Republican members of Congress. "And I'll even go 3 for 1 for McConnell," he says. That could be quite a bill if McConnell takes the challenge; after all, the Senator is worth at least $10 million. As Buffett put it to me, "I'm not worried."

Buffett doesn't want to sound ungrateful, especially since McConnell and other Republicans have lobbied to keep taxes low for the über-rich, saving him between $6 million and $7 million this year. Oddly, though, conservatives can't seem to make up their mind about taxes. On Wednesday in the Wall Street Journal, supply sider Arthur Laffer bashed Buffett for, among other things, shielded income, because he doesn't pay taxes on unrealized capital gains (currently taxed at 0%) or charitable contributions (which are tax deductible). "Well, I had a net unrealized loss in 2011," says Buffett. "But if Arthur has a plan for how he wants to tax unrealized capital gains, I'd love to hear it -- it's an interesting thing for a Republican to put forward!"

If Buffett had his way, he'd pay more than the 17% rate he currently forks over on his net adjusted income -- and he'd have the government put that additional money to work by making sure that whatever portion of the 99% that isn't thriving in the market economy gets some help. As Buffett wrote in Fortune a few years back, "I've worked in an economy that rewards someone who saves the lives of others on a battlefield with a medal, rewards a great teacher with thank-you notes from parents, but rewards those who can detect the mispricing of securities with sums reaching into the billions."

Buffett doesn't want to hobble capitalism. He just wants to give it a heart. And he says the way to do that is to change our tax policy to ensure that people who earn their money from investments rather than by working for a paycheck contribute their fair share. "We need a tax system that takes very good care of people who just really aren't as well adapted to the market system and to capitalism but are nevertheless just as good citizens and are doing things that are of use in society." Note to bond traders: your higher taxes should help subsidize the building of bridges and the running of state-sponsored day-care centers.

Buffett has plenty of other prescriptions for America -- from more progressive consumption taxes to penalties for errant corporate directors to an overhaul of health care. He's also got a few choice words for the Republican field and their ideas about bootstrapping and "merit" economies: "This whole business about [Newt] Gingrich going down to Occupy and saying, 'They ought to be getting a job,' that's just ... you know, maybe they can be historians for Freddie Mac too and make $600,000 a year." When I ask whether Mitt Romney is a job creator or destroyer, Buffett says that while businesses shouldn't keep people they don't need, "I don't like what private-equity firms do in terms of taking out every dime they can and leveraging [companies] up so that they really aren't equipped, in some cases, for the future."

Palestinians submit UN statehood bid

[What part don't you understand? The "Pal" or the "estinian"? Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?]

By Amy Teibel and Mohammed Daraghmem - Associated Press | AP

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Defying U.S. and Israeli opposition, Palestinians asked the United Nations on Friday to accept them as a member state, sidestepping nearly two decades of failed negotiations in the hope this dramatic move on the world stage would reenergize their quest for an independent homeland.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was greeted by sustained applause and appreciative whistles from the delegations in the General Assembly hall as outlined his people's hopes and dreams of becoming a full member of the United Nations. Some members of the Israeli delegation, including Foreign Minister Avigdor Liebermann, left the hall as Abbas approached the podium.
In a scathing denunciation of Israel's settlement policy, Abbas declared that negotiations with Israel "will be meaningless" as long as it continues building on lands the Palestinians claim for that state. Invoking what would be a nightmare for Israel, he went so far as to warn that his government could collapse if the construction persists.

"This policy is responsible for the continued failure of the successive international attempts to salvage the peace process," said Abbas, who has refused to negotiate until the construction stops. "This settlement policy threatens to also undermine the structure of the Palestinian National Authority and even end its existence."

To another round of applause, he held up a copy of the formal membership application and said he had asked U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon to expedite deliberation of his request to have the United Nations recognize a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem.
Ban has to examine the application before referring it to the Security Council. Action on the membership request could take weeks, if not months. [If not years. If ever.]

The speech papered over any Palestinian culpability for the negotiations stalemate, deadly violence against Israel, spurned peace offers and the internal rift that has produced dueling governments in the West Bank and Gaza. It also ignored Jewish links to the Holy Land. [Cough-cough, excuse me? They want to take all of the Holy Land away from Israel? Of course not; they just want the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem. Israel doesn't overlook the Palestinians' links to the Holy Land? It's been more than seven centuries since the Battle of La Forbie in 1244. Look it up. Do the math.]

Abbas' jubilant mood was matched by the exuberant celebration of thousands of Palestinians who thronged around outdoor screens in town squares across the West Bank on Friday to see their president submit his historic request for recognition of a state of Palestine to the United Nations.

"I am with the President," said Muayad Taha, a 36-year-old physician, who brought his two children, ages 7 and 10, to witness the moment. "After the failure of all other methods (to win independence) we reached a stage of desperation. This is a good attempt to put the Palestinian cause and the Palestinian people on the map. Everyone is here to stand behind the leadership."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing the General Assembly shortly after Abbas, said his country was "willing to make painful compromises." [Painful? How painful?]

"I extend my hand to the Palestinian people, with whom we seek a just and lasting peace," Netanyahu said, to extended applause.

Palestinians, he added, "should live in a free state of their own, but they should be ready for compromise" and "start taking Israel's security concerns seriously." [Israel has security concerns because they continue to build settlements on Palestinian land. If they withdrew from the settlements, what would happen? Threats to their security would increase? Of course not. They have security concerns because of their own actions.]

[The US and Israel against the world. ♫ Sometimes it feels like... ♫

I understand the necessity for the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1948, after the horrors of the Holocaust. I think anyone in the West who was against its creation at the time had to be completely devoid of a capacity for empathy. But in 1967, rather than having a Six-Day War, Israel and Jews worldwide should have taken stock of themselves and seen how well things were going for them then and realized that they didn't need modern Israel anymore. They had outgrown the need for it. (In 1967, Jews were ghettoized in New York? In L.A.? In Atlanta? In Dallas? What, Beverly Hills was a ghetto in 1967? Nice ghetto. Gays should have had to endure such ghettos in 1967.) Instead of ramping up the conflict, Israelis should have just lost interest in having a homeland that hadn't been their homeland for 19 centuries, since the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-136 ce). The land should have just drifted back to Palestinian possession over time as Israelis left to find nicer digs elsewhere.]

The fiction unearthed

My email (4/9/2011) to the authors of The Bible Unearthed:

Dear Drs. Finkelstein and Silberman:

I know I can't be the only one who, after reading The Bible Unearthed, actually came up with a novel based on some of the information you present in it. In any case, I'm interested in knowing your reaction to the idea of broadening the discussion about the origins of the Bible by way of fiction. Bad idea? Or would it be good to reach an audience who wouldn't ordinarily read a nonfiction book on the subject? Or do you expect that broadening the audience would do nothing more than add to the number of people who already resist the ideas expressed in your book? My own hope is that, if greater numbers of people were to realize that neither Moses nor Muhammad had any special revelation and were just writing from what they understood at the time, the conflict over the modern state of Israel might ease somewhat, as might the conflict in the US between right and left over the fusion or separation of church and state; but that may be just my naivete. If you consider it inadvisable to popularize the discussion of the Bible’s origins any more than it already is, it would be interesting to know your reasons. If you thought that (given that the writing in my book is of high enough quality and the research thorough enough) broadening the discussion in this way would benefit the public, it would be very appreciated if you would consider giving your reasons in a foreword for the book.

I'm currently querying the book to literary agents and describing the book to them with the following paragraphs:

There's a short episode in II Kings in the Bible where an old scroll of the law is found during Temple renovations. I learned from reading The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman that scholars have speculated for quite a while that the scroll that was found was actually new, composed by the priests and scribes not long before its "discovery." So I thought, what if the rough draft of that scroll surfaced?

At the core of my debut novel, The Talpiot Find, is an archaeological dig in present-day Jerusalem uncovering ancient clay tablets that potentially will anger Jews, Christians and Muslims alike when the text they contain is made public. The novel weaves together two storylines. The story set in the 7th century BCE focuses on a slave manager at the Temple in Jerusalem who is given the task of disposing of clay tablets used to compose the rough draft of the scroll of the law that was later "found" during Temple renovations, but which were mistakenly taken to a potter and fired, preserving the edited text on them. Because of the secrecy surrounding the tablets and the scroll copied from them, the manager suspects that the Temple scribes plan to have him killed. In the present-day story, the archaeologists try to keep the tablets low-profile, but a provocative video about the tablets surfaces on YouTube. They then learn that one of the tablets, acquired in the 12th century, has been kept a secret through the centuries by a small, select group of rabbis. In order to contain this knowledge, special-ops agents contracted by Mossad detain a student from the dig team and threaten to kill him if the rabbis’ tablet is disclosed by the few people who know about it. Word count: 71,000.

Regarding my background, I spent my first 32 years as a super-Evangelical. (We even thought Jerry Falwell was a little on the liberal side.) I graduated from Bob Jones University with a B.S. in cinema and with extensive knowledge of conservative Bible doctrine and history. I’m now an agnostic, better educated and a bit older, but my knowledge of Scripture provides valuable perspective when I examine history and contemporary issues from a secular standpoint.

I haven't read any of Dan Brown's books, in case you're wondering; I wrote my book as literary fiction rather than as a thriller. My writing is influenced much more by Umberto Eco and John Updike than by popular authors.

Thanks very much.

A seed sprouts in Gaza

My email to John Brockman

Mr. Brockman:

You see the absurdity in the term "Christian atheist" of course. But in the term "Jewish atheist" you see no absurdity. You just see your heritage informed by science. You may not even see any absurdity in the concept of a secular synagogue. Jews who no longer believe in G-d, continuing to go through the motions? Keeping to the 613 mitzvot, give or take a few? Like using the Sabbath mode on their oven? The reason for that, ultimately, is simple: They haven't set Judaism aside because they don't want to become common like everyone else. To an objective observer it's very clear that that is the motivation. Can you detect it in yourself? Don't veer off into an accusation of anti-semitism. Focus on the question itself. Examine your reluctance to change any action or reaction that is specifically associated with your Jewish heritage. Your reluctance to x is based on what? It's harmful? It's inefficient? Of course not. It would make you seem common.

My reason for writing this to a complete stranger is because you and the other thinkers involved with the Edge Foundation are so influential. And you cannot reach the furthest boundaries of human knowledge and understanding if you continue to wear that 4,000-year-old hat. You've cut off the brim, yes, but that just makes the hat look ridiculous. You need to take it all the way off. And it's puzzling to observe, from a distance, that your innovative, iconoclastic thinking cannot reach that point. Exempli gratia, is the modern nation of Israel an occupation of Palestinian land? Do you believe that modern Israel has no claim to the land 19 centuries after the Bar Kokhba revolt marked the dissolution of the nation of Israel? That hat influences your thinking. If a people can make a claim to land 19 centuries after the land ceased to be an independent nation of those people, then modern Iranians of Babylonian descent could make the same claim regarding Babylonia in modern Iraq, since Babylonia was taken over in the Arab conquest only 13 centuries ago, after having been under Persian control for the previous 12 centuries. Would the UN condone a military invasion of Iraq motivated by Iranians' desire to reclaim their beloved city of Babylon?

As I understand it, the foundation and justification for the modern state of Israel are the covenants G-d made with Abraham, Moses and others giving the land to the people of Israel in perpetuity. With Jews who believe that G-d directed Moses to write the Torah and chronicle the covenants, it's understandable that they feel the land will always belong to the people of Israel. But Jewish atheists go along with that? People who believe that there was no G-d to make a covenant with Moses or Abraham have to acknowledge that the land of Israel must have been given to the Israelites in perpetuity by the Israelites themselves. Nineteen centuries ago Israel had a valid claim to the land, yes, and Rome was quite wrong in so brutally denying Israel its independence. But after 19 centuries of rule by peoples other than the people of Israel, the land having been given to the Israelites in perpetuity by the Israelites themselves is a very tenuous claim. As much as Palestinians have lost the moral high ground with the atrocities they've committed, their claim to the land is obvious: seven centuries of continuous governing of the land following the defeat of the Crusaders at the Battle of La Forbie in 1244.

But it’s not his issue. It’s ultimately between the Israelis and the Palestinians. People have been trying for more than half a century to resolve the conflict and haven’t been able to because the parties don’t want the conflict resolved. Conflict is a raison d’etre. Without it, life is dull. Ergo, as long as no Muslim nation fires rockets on Los Angeles because of its large Jewish population, Marc isn’t involved in the conflict. It’s not his issue; graduating with high honors is his issue. Three hundred years from now, Israelis and Palestinians will still be fighting over who owns the land. Five hundred years from now. Whatever. It’s not his issue. As long as they don’t blow him up, or the people he cares about, it’s not his concern. They benefit, somehow, from the perpetuation of the conflict. They actually don’t want to win the conflict; a victory or an accord would be followed by an awkward silence. The conflict gives them a script and a to-do list.

The previous paragraph is from a novel I wrote about a fictional archaeological dig in Jerusalem. A novel you would decline to represent, not because of the writing or because it's fiction or for any other aspect but because of the ramifications of the book's premise: It's possible that the priests and scribes under King Josiah of Judah in the 7th century bce synthesized a new scroll, an early version of Deuteronomy, from the traditions of different regions but presented it to the people as if it had just been found in the Temple, after having been lost long ago, and held within it the words of Moses. The novel resulted from my wondering "What if the rough draft of that scroll surfaced?" If what you already believe regarding the Torah—that priests and scribes, not G-d through Moses, composed Devarim—somehow became clear to the public with the discovery of a rough draft preserved on clay tablets, the dynamics of the conflict over the possession of the land could change. Israel would no longer be able to claim that Moses informed the people that G-d had given the land to them in perpetuity if G-d needed to start with a rough draft before committing the text to parchment six centuries after Moses was believed to have lived. Even though the discovery of the rough draft on clay tablets in the story is an invention, it points to what has been there all along, the episode in II Kings concerning the finding of the scroll of the law in the Temple and the King initiating reforms based on it. Other things being equal, if the publication of this novel could, just very hypothetically, result in the Palestinians gaining the advantage in the conflict over the possession of the land, how would you react? Would you feel that you needed to prevent that from happening?

Lest you think the book is a diatribe: Of the four central characters, two are very sympathetic portrayals of Jews, one an American, one an Israeli. The other two are also sympathetic, a Jordanian Muslim from London and an American atheist. I didn't portray any evangelicals sympathetically, although I kept them low-key.

I'm not interested in the argument that the novel wouldn't sell. Controversy sells books. Making the claim that the Torah grew out of a deception in 622 bce would be controversial. I'm not even convinced that the writing in the novel is terrible. My favorite novelists are John Updike and Umberto Eco. I've never read a novel by Stephen King or Dan Brown.

Thanks very much.

Objectivity and archaeologists in the Holy Land

My response to a review of the DVD The Bible Unearthed posted on Amazon by R. R. Morris:

I used to be just like you. My faith in God was absolutely unshakable. I even graduated from a Christian university and was thoroughly grounded in conservative Bible doctrine. So I know that you (and I at the time) started with the premise "The Bible is true" because of the verse you referenced in your review "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good work" (KJV, quoted from memory), and everything you have learned about the Bible since then has been judged on the basis of whether it agrees or disagrees with that premise. But if you are honestly interested in learning whether something is true or not, you need to start with no premise and simply see what information is produced by careful research. If you were to look objectively at the doctrine of the inspired inerrancy of the Bible being established by the Bible itself, you'd see that it wasn't a very reliable proof on its own. Any author can claim to be inerrantly inspired of God. You can agree with that. There must be some external, disinterested, objective proof to corroborate that author's claim. With the Bible, all you have for objective proof are tradition and the unquestioning faith of billions of people. Even the scientific evidence used to prove the truth of the Bible isn't entirely reliable because it's produced or interpreted by scientists who start with the premise "The Bible is true." Starting with a premise always skews research results in the direction the scientist wants it to go, and some secular scientists are guilty of that, you're right. But believing that all secular scientists are bad scientists producing skewed data is too broad a generalization.

When you wrote "with no proof and contrary to archaeological finds," you were referring to the interpretations of archaeologists who started with the premise "The Bible is true." Before 1960 or so, all Holy Land archaeologists started with that premise, and they would even tell you that. It was simply a given among those archaeologists. So if recent reinterpretations and new findings disagree with the long history of interpretions in support of the Bible, they should be considered seriously because previous archaeologists were admittedly not very objective.
___

The review by R. R. Morris:

I didn't know and the cover doesn't say whether the DVD was going to endorse the Bible or present it contrary to its own testimony,"inspired of God" 2 Tim.3:16. The first 52 minutes "argues" there is no archaeological evidence of camels, Philistines during Abraham's time and no evidence of Abraham ever being in Ur, so therefore the Bible is wrong on those issues. (I guess there is nothing left for archaeologists to find, they found it all!) "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." They also say Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were never father, son and grandson with no proof and contrary to archaeological finds! Go figure! Just more Bible-predicted degrading of God's word.

A little perspective on the Torah

My response to a review, posted on Amazon by Ken Tells All, of Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Elliott Friedman:

Poor Ken. You can't help swimming upstream, can you, while explaining to everyone that "up" is really "down." You said "there are many more who disagree with him [Friedman] than those who think like him." You could be absolutely correct. There are also about a billion people who believe that the number 8 is lucky. That must be true too, because how could a billion people be wrong? Never point to the number of people believing something as proof that the something is true.

You said "a book on the creation of a nation called the children of ISRAEL." You're absolutely right on that too. It's interesting that you aren't bothered by the G-d of the Torah focusing exclusively on Israel, with all other people on Earth being considered "others" whose lands could be taken and "every living thing that breathes" in that land put to the sword. A G-d who created all people for the sole purpose of worshiping him and who killed, or instructed to be killed, anyone who didn't. Don't try to squirm around this one. It's right there in print. How many times were Israelites instructed to take up stones to kill a person who went after other gods? A response like "G-d can do that because he's G-d" doesn't actually explain anything. And "G-d's ways are higher than our ways" is just lame.

You said "he [Friedman] is not an expert." You checked his credentials? Or do you just feel that, if he were an expert, he wouldn't disagree with you?

You said "The individuals in the Torah did exist and that is confirmed by the lines of descent of the Kings of Israel and Judah." Are you sure you want to use the word "confirmed"? That we've determined that Hezekiah and the kings following him were very likely historical figures because of the references to them in the writings of other nations, proves that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph were also historical figures? That's stretching a proof a bit too far.

This statement is interesting: "The Hebrew bible is only concerned about the children of Israel and their relationship with the one G-d of the Universe." The entire universe was made for the children of Israel? Is it okay that I'm here? Or am I trespassing on private property?

You wrote "I could go on and on" - I could too. This could easily grow into a book - "but it is foolish to try and convince people, who do not believe in G-d, that there is a G-d." Move the "not" from before "believe" to after "is" and you still have a true statement. Neither of us is going to budge from our position. But I'm fortunate to have been on both sides of the debate. It doesn't matter the flavor of my previous beliefs; for my first thirty years the strength of my faith matched yours. And now I'm able to look back on my absolutely immoveable faith in G-d and see it as the result of the conditioning I was exposed to from very early childhood. You were conditioned from early childhood too. And where you live in New York now you are completely immersed in a Jewish environment, aren't you. You spend as little time as possible with non-Jewish people, don't you. And as a result you can't really look objectively at your construct of the universe: The G-d of Israel created the universe and focuses exclusively on his people. So what does that make all those other people on the sidewalks and streets of New York? Just animals? Props? Projections? Debris? When you subtract the number of Jewish people in the world from the global population of nearly seven billion, that's a lot of debris. You probably argue that, in the Torah, all of the nations around Israel consciously rejected G-d and that all non-Jews today are descended from them, and they can repair their situation now by accepting God and converting to Judaism. But if you honestly look in your heart, you know you feel that it isn't the same when a person converts to Judaism as when a person is born Jewish. Be honest with yourself. You need to confront that aspect of yourself. Connect the concepts: The G-d of Israel created the universe and focuses exclusively on his people, and the other people sharing the universe with them cannot hope to equal those for whom the universe was created. That is not a good perspective from which to view the world.

You said "Oh by the way, there is today a nation called Israel that was gathered from the nations of the world after nearly 2 thousand years." And, by the way, it's an occupation. After eighteen hundred and sixteen years, from the Bar Kokhva Revolt in 132 to the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, the land was no longer the Jews' to retrieve like a lost hat. The Jews' claim to the land ended in the second century. If it were any other people invading any other land, it would have provoked a war to protect the rights of the invaded (cf. World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War). An occupation isn't something to be proud of.

Poor Ken. I wish I could help. If you were an Anglo-American I would describe you as superhyperpatriotic. Your identity is so tangled up in your heritage-ethnicity-religion (like mine was) that you've forgotten that you are a complete individual on your own and able to think independently. I hope someday you'll be able to untangle your identity and to free yourself from the need to conform to the expectations of the people around you.
___

Following is the review of "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard Elliott Friedman posted on Amazon by Ken Tells All:

Friedman talks a lot but proves nothing. He "OBVIOUSLY" believes that the events in the Hebrew bible are for the most part fiction and written by different people for nation building & political propaganda. Bottom line, there are many more who disagree with him than those who think like him. He is not an expert in the field of religious study or is he able to understand that the Torah is not a world history book but a book on the creation of a nation called the children of ISRAEL. Its main purpose was to serve as a moral teaching for them to live by. The individuals in the Torah did exist and that is confirmed by the lines of descent of the Kings of Israel and Judah. Foreign nations of the time have acknowledged that these kings existed back to Hezekiah at least. Hezekiah is just another link to the ones before him back to David & Solomon. The people of Israel & the House of David have also been acknowledged by other ancient sources. Also, other nations date their histories by their royal lines, Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Roman, etc., why not accept the same when looking at Hebrew/Israelite royal documents. The Hebrew bible is only concerned about the children of Israel and their relationship with the one G-d of the Universe. Other stories that involved foreign nations were only necessary to show the people that when they sinned against their fellow man G-d would punish them by foreign nations attacking them. I could go on and on but it is foolish to try and convince people, who do not believe in G-d, that there is a G-d who does communicate with humans and does act in this world. Let them write their misconceptions because in the end they will be proven wrong! Oh by the way, there is today a nation called Israel that was gathered from the nations of the world after nearly 2 thousand years. This proves that the Hebrew bible and its prophets told the truth and that those who doubt the truth of the Torah are wrong!

Evangelicals praying for Obama's death??

Is this for real? It's a little early for an April Fool's prank. And this one is in especially bad taste.

(Newser) – While a handful of Americans might have taken a few minutes to reflect favorably on George Washington and Abe Lincoln on Presidents Day, some evangelical leaders devoted their time to praying for Barack Obama's death. The "Imprecatory Prayer" is a favorite of Arizona’s Baptist preacher Steven L. Anderson and Orange County's Wiley Drake, who told supporters in an email over the weekend that the supplication is "now your DUTY."

If "you have an evil leader above you, you pray that Satan will stand by his side and you ask God to make his children fatherless and his wife a widow and that his time in office be short," Drake told Daily Beast columnist John Avlon. Anderson has said he hopes Obama dies of brain cancer "today." To those offended by the sentiments, Wiley responds: "I’m praying the word of God. I didn’t write it. Don’t get mad at me.”

It's unfortunate that any ruckus this story causes will only bring Anderson and Wiley more attention which will result in higher praise from evangelicals and a surge in tithes and offerings. And to think I used to be part of that population. One can't choose one's family background, but one can choose to crawl out of his early conditioning if he works hard enough at it.

Obama is evil in what ways?? Because he wants insurance and pharmaceutical companies to be competitive? Because he's an African-American? Because he's not Republican? Once again I'm extremely embarrassed by the country in which I live. Yes this is the ranting of the far-right fringe but, knowing the evangelical perspective like I do, this is the thinking, to at least some degree, of far more conservatives than just the fringe.

GE's Olympics ad sounds suspiciously familiar

Did my arrangement of Ode to Joy inspire GE's Olympics ad? (Patients saying "ah" building into a chorus ah-ing Ode to Joy.) When's the last time you heard a choir ah-ing Ode? (A sample is at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/garveyjohn3 but the full choir begins after the sample ends.) The track is available at several of the music-licensing sites, and an adman, while browsing, could have become curious about Ode to Joy in the "experimental" category. And when s/he listened to it, s/he got the idea for the ad. (Public domain, their arrangement. I have no claim.) Stranger things have happened.

Main Street's Revenge: Use Cash

From OpEdNews.com

Right now, there is a growing movement to Use Cash instead of credit and debit cards whenever possible. Once it gets going it will terrify the Banksters.
...

This relatively easy, non-violent action against the banking abuses and financial scams that continue to plague our economic system has many advantages:

1) By using cash we can significantly decrease a important stream of money that directly finances the very institutions that inspired our wrath.

2) Using cash instead of plastic is an action that everyone, to some degree or another, can take both immediately and everyday.

3) Unlike a boycott, no participant will need to suffer any self-denial of necessary goods or services. Just substitute cash for plastic as much as possible.

4) The economic standing and physical well-being of the protest participants are, generally, not at risk. For example: No negative effects on credit reports, like those associated with foreclosure or non-payment. No risk of bodily harm from police or other altercations during a march or other protest.

5) Denying the dysfunctional part of the current economic system funding is an effective, nearly terrifying, prospect to banking and finance target of the protest.

6) As the action of using cash grows along with the numbers of participants, visibility for the protest will expand until it can no longer be ignored.

7) With the tools available on the internet, there is little to no cost for either advocates of, or participants in, the movement. Simple: Use Cash and let others know you're part of the movement.

8) Because Use Cash is the choice of one payment system in the market over another, they – the banking/finance cartel and the government – will not be able to stop the protest.

Yes, cash is less convenient than plastic for many transactions. It's a small sacrifice we should be willing to make if we really want change. Use Cash is is a lot easier than throwing a lynching party we were never going to have in the first place, isn't it?

Learn how to make the Use Cash movement work at Use Cash Movement.

Zazzling free speech

My email to Zazzle.com, where I have some T-shirt designs for sale:

Zazzle said:
Unfortunately, it appears that your product, Replication T-shirt, contains content that is not suitable for printing at Zazzle.com.
• Policy Violations:
o Design contains a trademarked image or text.

How was it unsuitable? If I remember right, the design was only text and read "Caution. Think before you replicate." It was a reference to the environment and the negative impact "baby booms" can have on it. Most likely a pregnant mother ran across my T-shirt design and it offended her, and you deleted the T-shirt at her request. Would you like to see my other product designs that would offend her as well? You could delete them too, but then where would you stop deleting designs that offend people?

You are probably aware that this deletion falls into the area protected by the First Amendment.

In your email, what does this mean? "• Policy Violations: o Design contains a trademarked image or text." What is the "o" for? Did the typist intend to type "0" (zero) but missed that key? Or is the "o" acting as a bullet in the list under "Policy Violations"? The design contained a trademarked image or text?? Do you have a copy of the deleted design in archives or backups? You need to show me what part of the design was trademarked. "Caution. Think before you replicate." What part of that text is copyrighted?

I think it's possible that an employee took it upon him/herself to delete the T-shirt because the message offended him/her. And because the list of reasons for deletion didn't include "It offended me," s/he selected "Design contains a trademarked image or text." Could the reason for deletion be a little more specific? What part of the design was trademarked?

Whenever I see an anti-Obama design on a Zazzle product, it really offends me, mostly because the designer isn't interested in the facts about the Obama Administration. They just want the guy outta there, and they'll say anything to discredit him. Have I complained about any of the anti-Obama products? Of course not. Free speech protects those designers as much as it does me. So why didn't free speech protect me this time? Because my design included child pornography? Of course not. My design simply included a message that offended someone.

Is this becoming a trend at Zazzle? You need to find out.

Of peroxide and mortgages

As one of the Californians whom DiFi doesn't embarrass but should, I believe it is beyond doubt now that there is a very strong link between conspiracy theories and UFO theories. All the signs indicate that the irregularities detected in legislation affecting financial institutions and terror containment are the result of the influence exerted by a conspiracy composed primarily of alien extra-terrestrials (i.e., extra-terrestrials who are undocumented and residing in the United States illegally). In the six or seven years following 9/11, conspiracy theorists mistakenly believed that the conspiracy was being orchestrated solely by humans, and they thought the UFO theorists were mentally unstable, and vice versa. However, during the past two years or so, these two groups of theorists have realized that they have been examining different aspects of the same phenomenon and that pooling their knowledge would greatly enhance their understanding of the nature and objectives of the conspiracy. We now know, for example, that Donald Rumsfeld was not born on this planet, and thus is a citizen of neither the United States nor Earth, and that his birth certificate was fabricated to conceal his alien origins. It is strongly suspected, but has not been verified, that the Bush dynasty's origins were also extra-terrestrial and that, since their arrival on Earth, Bush scions have been meztalios (half-human and half-alien) or quadralioons (one-quarter alien). We now know that DiFi, while a true citizen of Earth, is being telepathically controlled by extra-terrestrials who are keeping her alive artificially with transfusions of unknown chemical compounds. And this same telepathic control, we have learned, is responsible for anomalous decisions made recently by both Barney Frank and Timothy Geithner.

Although much has been learned recently about the alien conspirators, it is still uncertain what the primary objectives of the conspiracy actually are, what the nature of their intended New World Order will be. Perhaps all will be revealed on 21 December 2012, not long after Sara Palin, also, it has been learned, not a citizen of Earth, is elected illegally to be the American President.

Can you tell me how to get, how to get to C Street?

Hugo Zoom said: John, how is it this 2009 post ["C Street, the Family and Ivanwald are still around?"] has comments from 2005 and 2007? Me heap confused.

Versen,
I deleted part of the original post from 04/05/05 and published the abridged version as a new post. The comments came along for the ride. No magic was involved. The article by Jeffrey Sharlet was originally from '03, and I was surprised when Rachel Maddow brought up the Family again not long ago—six years later. Apparently some of the guys who were living at C Street back in '03 are still there. Maddow didn't mention Ivanwald as far as I know. And Sharlet's article mentions The Cedars "just down the road from Ivanwald," also not mentioned by Maddow. But they're all the Family's properties. I feel so safe with the Family looking out for our interests. It's sort of like The Waltons for the 21st century.

After Maddow started discussing C Street, and after I saw the clip of Coe, in which he expresses admiration for the Nazi's organizational skills, I sent a message to Maddow suggesting she look into the possibility that Cheney is exhibiting paranoid schizophrenia and that Coe is exhibiting garden-variety schizophrenia and shouldn't we, the public, know a little more about the condition so we can avoid electing those suffering from the condition to public office. The next day, during a story about the Sotomayor hearings on MSNBC, I noticed that the graphic in the lower right of the screen displaying the title of the story showed a picture of Sotomayor and the title "Hearing Voices." Is that totally cool or what? I imagine whichever admin assistant read my message first forwarded it to everybody else and they all had a good chuckle over it. Isn't that great? My brush with fame.

Then the other night, Maddow referred to the general public as "the public, such as it is" when asking Feinman about the effect of Obama's news conference. I know it's paranoid of me, but I was wondering if she had me (among others) in mind when she said that. But, then, she must get the looniest emails all the time. Surely my suggestion that Cheney is paranoid schizophrenic wasn't the first time she'd heard that and didn't catapult my email to the top of the loony pile. Surely not. I'm just being paranoid.

C Street, the Family and Ivanwald are still around?

This excerpt is from my post of 04/05/05:

When I googled "'republican party' platform," I stumbled onto TheocracyWatch.org, and the horror comedy abruptly started on my computer screen.

Dominionism? Dominionists?

It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ.

The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, former Executive Director of Coral Ridge Ministries

I wondered what TheocracyWatch.org was, was it just the angry ramblings of a pot-smoking paleo-hippie sitting cross-legged on a dirty floor somewhere, but TheocracyWatch is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy (CRESP) at Cornell University. Does that make it credible? You decide.

Definitely check out TheocracyWatch.org for the fear factor. You'll read about, for example, the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004, an actual bill: H.R. 3799 and S. 2082. John F. Sugg of the Weekly Planet explains that the bill "would acknowledge Christianity's God as the 'sovereign source' of our laws. It would reach back in history and reverse all judicial decisions that have built a wall between church and state, and it would prohibit federal judges from making such rulings in the future." The text of H.R. 3799 can be read on the Yurica Report site and probably any number of other sites that could be found with a search engine.

As I researched the above paragraph, however, I noticed an innocuous-looking link on the same page that leads to a Harper's Magazine article entitled "Jesus Plus Nothing" by Jeffrey Sharlet. Now...after reading about Ivanwald, the Cedars, the Family—such tranquil, pastoral names—nothing is the same. I've passed through a gate, a membrane, into another place. Single young men, living and praying together in a D.C. suburb, denying the lusts of the flesh, consecrate themselves to preparing for covert war and are wholly focused on establishing a new government based on the power of Christ. But it's not just about a group of self-purifying zealots. It's also about the power suits who attend prayer breakfasts where the zealots are attendants, "a rotating group of ambassadors, businessmen, and American politicians." Are you ready to take the red pill? Read the article.


Ivanwald
Now, was Jeffrey Sharlet killed shortly after publication of this article? How is it that the article is still online? Am I at risk because I link to it?

Wait, when was the article originally published? Was it an April fool's joke? March 2003. But there's no "gotcha" at the end of it, only footnotes.

Nah. The Family can't be real. Nobody's that dumb.

Dungeons & Detainees

Dear Mr. President:

There it goes. "Growing concerns over closing Guantanamo." It's as if people think that the detainees are going to be released into the air like a flock of doves. How hard is it for people to grasp that the detainees will be moved from one maximum-secuity prison (Guantanamo) to another maximum-security prison, where they will be treated like dangerous criminals who nonetheless have the right to know what they have been accused of and who their accusers are. Those rights, along with knowing that they will have a fair trial, are basic, fundamental, Founding Fathers protections built into the structure of the nation. Throwing somebody into a dungeon for an indefinite period of time without letting him know who is accusing him of what, is more characteristic of the Inquisition, the Roman Empire, ancient Egypt, the Third Reich. But the US in the 21st century?? What generated this wrinkle in time? Solar activity? A black hole?

Well, there goes the new, improved America that people hoped for when they voted you into office. We knew it was too good to be true. All it took was scaring people into believing that, if Guantanamo were closed, there would soon be enemy combatants running around their neighborhoods. The attention is now off rebuilding the economy and getting the tripartite federal government back into balance. (Did they ever find out where the Office of the Vice President fits in?)

Guantanamo is an archaic dungeon. It doesn't belong in this century.