His Maverickness the Flip-Flopper

Sam Stein has a blockbuster article up over at the HuffPost with some money quotes from St. John of Mavericka on Iraq. The best is this snippet with perpetual McCain cheerleader Chris "Mocho Man" Matthews:

Host Chris Matthews pressed McCain on the issue. "You've heard the ideological argument to keep U.S. forces in the Middle East. I've heard it from the hawks. They say, keep United States military presence in the Middle East, like we have with the 7th Fleet in Asia. We have the German...the South Korean component. Do you think we could get along without it?"McCain held fast, rejecting the very policy he urges today. "I not only think we could get along without it, but I think one of our big problems has been the fact that many Iraqis resent American military presence," he responded. "And I don't pretend to know exactly Iraqi public opinion. But as soon as we can reduce our visibility as much as possible, the better I think it is going to be."

Is it just me, or does it seem like he's embraced the position that he used to decry? I seem to remember a comment about staying in Iraq for 100 years. See, I thought St. John was too mavericky to do stuff like that. My God, did he flip-flop? Surely a maverick, no, the Maverick, wouldn't pander to the neocons and switch his position. Get with it people (and by people I mean the MSM), McCain used to and for the most part still does (with the exception of Iraq) take whatever position helps him the most politically. He flipped on tax cuts, immigration, Iraq, campaign finance, you name it bitches, if it's flippable, Johnny Mav flipped. Will this get any coverage in the McCain coddling MSM? Well Olbermann will probably talk about it, but everyone else will ignore it as they always do. Yet another reason to blisteringly hate St. John and his loyal subjects in the media.

Catholicism's Slow but Certain Death

Reading this Harold Meyerson post over at TAPPED provided the catalyst I finally needed to write a post dealing with the Catholic Church and the decline of Catholicism, particularly in the U.S. Meyerson's post is a commentary on the self-proclaimed "Prince of Darkness" Bob Novak's column criticizing the Archbishops of Washington D.C. and New York allowing pro-choice elected officals (most prominently Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, and Teddy Kennedy) to receive communion at the Papal Mass celebrated in DC a couple of weeks ago. Essentially, Novak is upset that these sinful politicians are allowed to receive the body and blood of Christ despite their support for abortion rights. Novak notes that the Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, forbids pro-choice elected officials from receiving communion, and this is the "proper" course.

It's stuff like this that signals the death of the Catholic Church in America. When a church is in a period of growth, as the Catholic Church repeatedly states it is, the goal is to attract as many new members as possible. However, when prominent Catholic columnists like Bob Novak make a fuss over pro-choice Catholic politicians receiving communion, it turns people off. Now I don't really know anything about this Archbishop Burke, but it seems to me like his decision to in effect regulate communion, will have the exact opposite effect he's hoping for. The Catholic Church seems to be trapped in an effort to reshape the world around its own viewpoint. Most religions in the 21st century have taken the opposite approach, and sought to adapt in order to fit with the times. For example, Evangelicals are beginning to focus more on combatting poverty and global warming than their old culture war crusades. The Catholic Church either doesn't get this, or it stubbornly refuses to change. While a lot people believe the culprit is the former, I believe it's the latter. Look, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not made up of a bunch of idiots, these guys know their numbers in the States, and Western Europe are shrinking. They attribute this phenomena to declining morality as opposed to the rigidity of the Church. In essence, the problem is the people, not the Church. The Catholic Church needs to understand that social norms and expectations vary over time. An institution, in this case the Catholic Church, with few exceptions, cannot hope to reassert its moral principles on the American public. Today the Church would need the cooperation of the government and the media to accomplish such a task. While certain elements of both estates are in alingment with the Church, there is not enough strength to push this agenda through.

It should also be mentioned that the sexual abuse scandal hasn't helped the Church either. Hypocrisy is poison in 21st century America. It doesn't matter how much people love you, they will adore watching you burn after you've been proven to be, or even just accused of being, a hypocrite. Plus, the cover up that ensued, eminating from the highest levels of the Vatican, only made things worse. The sex scandal killed the Catholic Church in the eyes of millions of Americans. Now Catholic priests are the butts of many a joke. Desptie being born and raised as in a Catholic family, I was never offended by these jokes. They were deserved. When you have thousands of priests abusing little boys and then launch a massive cover up operation, you deserve to be the butt of a few jokes. Bill Maher said it perfectly, the Catholic Church is the Bear Sterns of organized religion. If a day care company with thousands of employees abusing children was discovered, and the the corporate board attempted to conceal this, the perpetrating employees along with the entire board would've been thrown in prison and the company would've been sold. But if your the Catholic Church, the same rules don't apply.

Chances are the Catholic Church could gain more members or at least hault its slide by doing some of the following:

1. Allow priests to marry
2. Accept gay men into the priesthood
3. ALLOW WOMEN TO BE PRIESTS
4. The Catholic Church is nearly unparelled in its dedication to social justice, this is an invaluable asset, focusing more on this trait as oppossed to tired old culture wars would likely catch the eyes and ears of many socially conscious and impressionable people

Sadly, I think the chance of any of these things happening is pretty much zilch. An institution that fails to reorient itself in order to be fit with the times is doomed to a gradual and final exit.

This will never end!

Well a new AP/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton leading St. John of the Straight Talk by 9 points nationally. Needless to say, this is not good news for Barack Obama, who leads McCain by a meager 2 percentage points, i.e. within the poll's margin of error. I'll admit it, it's hard to ask Clinton to drop out when she just won Pennsylvania and she's shallacking McCain in national polls. Everyone talks about how every contest from here on out is a "must win" for Clinton, but let's be honest, they're starting to be "must wins" for Obama as well. If he can somehow pull out victories in Indiana and North Carolina, that would take a lot of the wind out of Clinton's sales. While there are certainly a lot of white working class voters (Obama'a bane) in IN and NC, I think Obama has a decent shot at winning both states. First off, there are a lot of African-Americans in North Carolina, which should hopefully lock it up for him. Plus, look at all the colleges in Indiana: Purdue, Notre Dame, Valparaiso, Butler, University of Indiana, IUPUI, etc. If Obama can continue to turn out college aged voters in Indiana like he has been elsewhere he should be in good shape. Nevertheless, poll results like this will keep both candidates alive for some time.

P.S. These results demonstrate that there is cause for optimism considering that even with Bittergate, the Wright controversy, and faux sniper fire dominating the 24-hour McCain-loving media cycle, both Democratic candidates are running even or ahead of his Maverickness!

The Abercrombie Vote

Well, you already know Barack Obama lost last night, but how about those three dudes behind him with the Abercrombie & Fitch shirts. Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias both have posts on these guys here and here. Read the comments on both posts, they are hilarious! I'm actually really surprised that the Obama campaign let these guys stand behind him. First off, in light of Bittergate, Obama's attempts to reach out to working class voters won't be helped by the presence of three upper-middle class frat boy douchebags. Plus you could see people texting in the background. It was just piss poor coordination by the Obama campaign that resulted in a concession speech mixed with a heavy dose of superficiality. Seriously, the whole thing brought back memories of high school that I've been trying to repress for 5 years! Now, in the end, this really isn't a big deal. It's not going to sink Obama and it's not going to birth another scandal. It just means that Barack Obama was momentarily associated with a segment of American society that prides itself on status symbols and mocho effete.

P.S. I'm pretty sure that's not Larry David behind Obama, but it sure as hell does look like him. David has campaigned for Obama in the past though, so I could be wrong. But I'm gonna stick with it not being him.

Photo used courtesy of flickr user _aa_ April 22, 2008

Trouble in Houston

It seems as if Miguel Tejada is in a lot of trouble. First off, it turns out that Miguel's last name is Tejeda not Tejada. Also he lied about his age, he's 33 not 31 (Why!?! Plus at least make it more than a two year difference!). Finally, there is of course Tejada's surfacing in the Mitchell Report for possible steroid usage. If your asking, what's the big deal. Here's the big deal: Tejada lied about his age and name while applying for a green card post-immigration. Plus, when applying for a green card, the applicant is asked about drug usage. Whoops! This could all lead to Tejada getting deported; or, at best, he could be turned into an informant to rat out other players to the Feds. I have to say, while I shouldn't, I actually kind of feel sorry for Tejada, or should I say Tejeda. Basically the only reason any of this is coming to light is the fact that the guy more likely than not joined the Roid Raiders club (Canseco, Giambi, Piatt, etc.) in Oakland. I mean, let's be honest, in late 90's Oakland, who wasn't juiced!?! The men in the A's clubhouse had more testosterone pumping than the rest of the Bay Area combined. Clearly, Tejada has made a number of bad decisions, but you have to wonder how many other players out there have just as many skeletons in there closet (cough cough Ankiel cough).

Now that I got the pleasantries and compassion out of the way, in the interest of full disclosure I should acknowledge that as a Brewers fan the Houston Astros are one of my favorite opponents. Pretty much every time the Brewers play the Astros (whether in Milwaukee or Houston) we just beat the living shit out of them. Seriously, we won a game in Houston like 15-1 last year! What?! Needless to say, if this causes the famously dysfunctional Astros to become more dysfunctional, the only wisdom I can impart is that this is natural selection taking its course.

Finally, in other baseball related news, I love 5 gum. Seriously, it's freakin' fantastic. I was at CVS over lunch and noticed for the first time that 5 is manufactured by Wrigley. This causes a dilemma for me. I love the gum, but I hate to think that my love of 5 gum is in some way support for the Cubs. But what can I really do? Wrigley pretty much has a defacto monopoly on the chewing gum market, and it's just so damn good! Ideas?

Photo used courtesy of flickr user gajdam1 Apirl 18, 2008.

More Bittergate

Via Ezra Klein, I was directed to this wonderfully biting column by Jonathan Chait attacking patent rich boy George Will's newfound affinity for working class voters. Big G scoffed at Barack Obama's "condescending" remarks. This is in the same vain of other pundits like Tim "Blue Collar Buffalo" Russert and Chris "Man's Man" Matthews. Chait singlehandedly deconstructs any vestage of a connection that George Will and co. claim they have with the working class of Pennsylvania. This is my favorite bit:

Bill O'Reilly's or Tim Russert's endless invocations of their working-class backgrounds are the equivalent of the campus activist who introduces every opinion by saying "As a woman of color . . . ." (The one difference being that the latter really is a woman of color, while the former are multimillionaires who retain only the most remote connection to blue-collar life.)

Nice. I was watching Bill Maher last week and he interviewed Chris Matthews and attacked him on his avoidance of anything but "character" issues. Matthews, predictably, wouldn't back down and continued to denigrate Obama and Clinton for their lack of affinity with "normal" people. Bill Maher put it correctly when he stated that this country can't afford to vote for the "better" guy. That's true. But I think he's conceeding a point here. Republicans aren't the "better" guys. McCain and Bush are lifetime upperclass individuals. Bush is just good at pretending that he seems like an everyday American. However, I don't think attending Yale and being a member of the ultra exclusive Skull and Bones is "everyday American." I don't think attending Harvard Business School makes you an "everyday American." Last but not least, being the son of the forty-first President of the United States of America doesn't exactly make you an "everyday American." That's not to say that normal people don't go to Yale and Harvard. Plenty do. But W never would've gotten into any of these prime institutions without a little help from Big Pappa Bush and his connections. Good grief!!!

P.S. I promise that this is the last post on bittergate

P.P.S. Well, ok, that is unless something similar to this comes along again!

Update: The Obama Fuck Up

Well, I'm pleased to say that it appears that Hillary Clinton has saved Barack Obama's ass in regards to bittergate. Ezra Klein details in this post how Clinton's decision to latch on to these remarks and make it a campaign issue have resulted in the media dropping the story on its own merits and reframing it as a spat between Obama and Clinton. As we've seen in South Carolina, this type of framing tends to work against Clinton and for Obama. I'll be honest, I really thought this was a huge blow to Obama, but it appears that he has dodged a bullet, at least for the moment. However, I am very happy that I was wrong and I am currently eating my words with a side of cornbeef hash.

Also, today's New York Times column from P-Krug takes a look at the "bitter" comments made by Obama and using a study from his Princeton colleague Larry Bartels comes to the conclusion that Obama was wrong about the voting patterns of the supposedly "bitter" working class whites of rural Pennsylvania. It turns out that the rural working class is much more concerned about economic issues than Obama thought. Once again, I was wrong about this, as I thought Obama was spot on with his comments. Once again, I am proud to eat my words, only this time with a "Love-It" sized "Birthday Cake Remix" from Coldstone.

In conclusion, my name is Scott, and as the title of the blog suggests, I oftentimes DON'T KNOW!!!

Hopping on the J Street Bandwagon

The liberal blogosphere and assorted liberal media outlets have been abuzz over the launch of J Street this week. J Street describes itself as a pro-Israel, pro-peace group. Obviously, J Street has a liberal bend and the group is implicity an alternative to groups like AIPAC (American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee) and CUFI (Christians United for Israel). There have been some great articles out there about J Street including this one from Spencer Ackerman, this one from Ezra Klein, and this one from Gershom Gorenberg. While all three articles deal with similar subject matter, they each approach the topic with their own unique narrative so I recommend that you take some time and read each one. I could take the time to explain my views on the Israeli issue but I think that Ackerman, Klein, and Gorenberg all do a much better job of it than I possibly could, so I will outsource the job to them and let the articles speak for themselves. On the other hand, I will say that you should definately check these guys out and sign up for their mailing list. Alternative views on achieving security and prosperity for Israel and her people are badly needed, so these guys deserve your report.

It's Been Awhile

Apologies for the lack of blogging this past week. I was in Philadelphia for a day so that kind of cut into things; however, that is no excuse for the lack of posts prior to that. I have some ideas for posts today and I'm hoping to have a normal blogging schedule next week. Hang in there!

The Obama Fuck Up

I'm sure that you've heard what Barack Obama said in San Francisco by now, but if you haven't , here is what he said, "It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Obama said this to explain the supposed "bitterness" among the white working class community. All I can say is...ouch. This could be huge. It's not a good sign that Bill Kristol is already comparing this statement with the writings of Karl Marx in the New York Times [Note: In no way do I think this is a bad thing, however, most people don't understand Marx and equate him with the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Castro]. Hillary has of course jumped all over this, but you can't really blame her, she has to.

Look, the truth of it is, Obama's explanation of working class disenfranchisement is actually pretty much spot-on. Nevertheless, it was an extremely stupid thing to say. Moreover, Obama said this in San Fran-fucking-cisco which makes it that much worse. The charges of liberal elitism and San Francisco values will be flying around for months now. I can't really make a judgement on whether this will sink Obama's candidacy; only time will tell on that front. However, needless to say, this was a major blunder on Obama's part, and it pretty much dwarfs the Wright controversy.

In conclusion...damn!

Hats Off

Tim Brown has a well written and touching column over at Yahoo! Sports about Doug Davis. Davis has a cancerous thyroid that he is having removed that will sideline him for at least six weeks. Despite this Davis pitched effectively in his last start before surgery and led Arizona to a 10-5 victory over the Dodgers. Not only did Davis get the job done on the mound he also produced at the plate and drove in a run. That's the way you want to go out before facing major surgery.

I remember Doug Davis from his years with the Brewers. I'll be honest the guy used to give me fits with all the walks, but he was always a classy guy and a good team player. According to Brown, Davis's mother is a thyroid cancer survivor and the cancer has a 97% cure rate. One can only hope that the surgery goes well and that he will be able to return this season to contribute more for his team.

Good luck Doug!

Surged

As most of you probably know, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassodor Ryan Crocker are giving an update this week before Congress on the progress (or, in truth, lack thereof) in post-surge Iraq. Considering the fact that I'm at work, I have not been able to pay very close attention to the testimony so far. However, I have been checking in from time to time with Dana Goldstein over at TAPPED and Spencer Ackerman over at the Independent Streak (the Washington Independent's blog) who are both liveblogging the events. Based off what I've read thus far, both Petraeus and Crocker are, for the most part, saying conditions in Iraq are much improved from the pre-surge era. Interestingly enough (however, unsurprising) both Petraeus and Crocker are referring to al-Qaeda in Iraq as simply al-Qaeda, despite the fact that these are two disparate groups. You think that's good, just wait 'til they get more into the Iran stuff! You should also check out Matt Yglesias's article, which is up on the American Prospect site about the testimony. It provides crucial context and has great suggestions for where the Democrats should go from here.

Obama's Gift of Dignity

This great article by Spencer Ackerman has been up on the American Prospect site for a week or so now, but I just read it last night in the print addition. Ackerman takes an in-depth look at Barack Obama's team of foreign policy advisers and their views. Obama has some great names (or in the case of Samantha Powers, has had) including Susan Rice, Tony Lake, Ben Rhodes, Sarah Sewall, and Gen. Scott Gration. Rice and Lake are veterans of the Clinton administration, Rhodes advised Lee Hamilton, Sewall is a human rights activist and counterinsurgency authority, and Gration is a retired Air Force General and Iraq War veteran. The focus of Ackerman's article is the revelation that this team of advisers represents a coherent visioin of American foreign policy that is a significant departure from the CW of the past 30 years. In other words, Obama came along and realized the ship was sinking and instead of repairing the ship, he built a new one. This group of advisers advocates the promotion of basic human dignity over democracy. They argue that democracy is meaningless if you can not live with dignity. In order for one to live with dignity they need to be well fed, have access to quality and affordable health care, have a plentiful supply of safe drinking water, etc. If the United States can provide a leadership role in alleviating the suffering of those in the developing world (particularly the Middle East and Africa) it will go a long way towards removing the conditions that al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups thrive on when seeking new recruits. I've already said too much about the article, read it for yourself, I assure you that you will come away impressed!

Time for more McCain Bashing

I've realized that perhaps my loathing for St. McCain is getting a bit self-righteous. Then I remembered that McCain is a dangerous man that supports endless war and violence and decided that it's ok. Anyways, on a non foreign policy front, the indispensible Paul Krugman's column today is a nice take down of the saint's health plan. Basically, like most conservatives (which John McCain is, no matter what the MSM tells you) McCain believes that radical free-market ideology will solve our healthcare crisis. He won't even acknowledge there is a crisis, but just in case, the market will save us. Also, humorist Allison Kilkenny has a crude but funny piece at the Huffington Post likening John McCain to a whore a la Randi Rhodes suspension for calling Hillary Clinton a "big fucking whore." Kilkenny has the money quote from Matt Welch's McCain: The Myth of a Maverick:

The fundamental question is: What is the United States' interest in Lebanon?" It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, who can the U.S. presence stabilize the region? ... What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.

That's McCain making sense! The Lebanon situation seems oddly parallel to a war were fighting currently that McCain wants to go on for another 100 years. However, now he's too mavericky to think in such logical terms. That would be politics as usual, now he fights against special interests, like the elite hippie anti-war crowd. Woo hoo!

Wal-Mart takes a turn towards humanity

I posted yesterday about the sad case of Debbie Shank. Well, it turns out that this story is going to have a happy ending. Wal-Mart announced in a letter to Jim Shank that they are dropping their lawsuit. This is great news for the Shanks and a win for humanity in general.

Know Nothings for President!

Matt Yglesias linked to a very disturbing item from ThinkProgress. St. McCain, which the media assures us is very experienced in foreign policy and national security politics, claims that Moqtda al-Sadr influence has been decreasing for some time. This is yet another example of John McCain's complete detachment from reality. As McClatchy's Leila Fadel reported last Sunday in a superbly well written and well reported article that Nouri al Maliki, the prime minister, basically asked for the ceasefire and it was largely negotiated by an Iranian general. This isn't McCain mispeaking, this is McCain misknowing, if you will. As Yglesias says in his post, McCain has no idea. Yet another sad commentary on McCain's supposed foreign policy expertise and the media that are so quick to laud his bogus credentials.

Debbie Shank

Well I've decided that it's about time I mention the tragedy of Debbie Shank on this blog. For those of you that are not aware Debbie Shank is a former Wal-Mart employee. Approximately 8 years ago Debbie was involved in an accident where her van was slammed into by a truck. The accident left her severely brain damaged. At the time of the accident she was covered by Wal-Mart's health plan and the company covered her health expenses. End of story, right? Wrong. The Shanks filed suit against the trucking company and the two parties reached a settlement of $1,000,000. After lawyer's fees were assessed the $417,000 remaining were placed in a trust that was to be used for Debbie's care. Wal-Mart claiming it has a right to recoup any money that resulted from a settlement, sued the Shank's for the approximately $470,000 that its health plan dispensed for Shank's medical expenses. A judge ruled that they can only collect what is left in the trust, which is around $200,000. The Shanks of course appealed the decision and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and stopped there. The Roberts' court, in its esteemed wisdom, refused to hear the case. Now, as I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court is the final legal avenue in the United States. Once they decide on a case, or refuse to, for that matter, it's a done deal. What this means is that the Shank's have to pay the $200,000 to Wal-Mart. This is now the end of the story.

Now there is little point in me getting really upset about this and trying to convince you how awful this is. That would be insulting to you, you're smarter than that. Just let me remind you that Wal-Mart rakes in tens of bilions of dollars in profits every year. Is an additional $200,000 really going to make that big of a difference?

In conclusion, you should check out this Huffington Post item with Keith Olbermann's take on the Debbie Shank tragedy.

Update: I neglected to mention a key detail in the Debbie Shank case. Her 18 year-old son was killed in Iraq. If you've watched the video over at Huffington Post you already now this, but it is of course a very relevant detail. When is this family going to get a break?