Tea party doesn’t scare me - letter by Lynea Seher

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------------

This letter is a continuation of the back-and-forth previously covered here. 

---------------------------------------

Nothing says “Tea Party Talking Points” on Social Security quite like the Supreme Court ruling in Nestor v Fletcher. (Um, Flemming,) Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant, was deported for having been a communist, and petitioned for Social Security benefits. The Supreme Court denied it, and now the tea party claims we have no “constitutional right” to Social Security benefits. (No, the Supreme court RULED that there is no right to SS benefits. And the word "constitutional" has not been used. No one has claimed that there is no "constitutional right" to SS benefits.)

As Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic & Policy Research says, we “don’t have a constitutional right to Social Security … but people do not have a constitutional right to many things that they can reasonably depend on, such as drinkable water, roads they can walk and drive on, not having their income taxed at a 90 percent average rate. (Ms. Seher, having established a false premise, now runs with it.)

“Congress could change laws tomorrow and make it so that we no longer enjoy any of these items, the constitution will not prevent them. But most of us conduct our lives as though Congress will not take such steps, because any Congress that did take away any of these items would likely be voted out of office quickly. Similarly, any Congress that substantially reduced Social Security benefits would likely be looking for new jobs quickly also. So, there is no constitutional right to Social Security benefits; there is just the fact that in a democracy it will be very difficult for Congress to substantially reduce Social Security benefits, since almost everyone either depends on them or expects to depend on them in the future.” (Having hysterically ranted about "constitutional" rights, Ms. Seher continues on to affirm my original point. Congress DOES have the power to change SS benefits, regardless of how difficult it might be.)

Our Social Security system is strong and resilient. (Which is not true. It is bankrupt and inflexible. Ms. Seher just told us it would be very difficult to reduce benefits, so it cannot be resilient. And the whole point of the prior discussion is that there is no cash in the Trust Fund. So rather than actually offer a refutation, Ms. Seher simply restates the debate's original false premise.) We should improve Social Security by pressuring Congress to remove the cap on payroll taxes, now set at $113,700, and tax all wages. (I thought it was "strong and resilient?" Why, then, does it need improving? And how would increasing SS taxes improve the situation, since this would simply provide government with more money to spend in the general fund? But an even more pressing question is if the tax cap on high earnings is removed without a commensurate increase in the amount of benefits, then that means her suggested improvement is a wealth transfer. If it is a wealth transfer, it is no longer an earned benefit, which negates the entire premise of the original debate. Remember, the original objection was that SS was funded. In that letter, Julie Quenemoen wrote, "We paid for it! We earned it!" So if the earnings cap is lifted, this claim is no longer valid.) We should make minimum benefits better and reinstitute (sic) benefits for survivors through college. (In other words, spend more money and make things worse, at the expense of someone else who won't get commensurate benefits for they money they put in.) 

To the tea party: We’re not falling for your scare tactics. It’s our government, too. (If she's not scared, she's living in fantasyland. That's what the True Believers do, unfortunately, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.)

Lynea Seher

Bozeman

New breed of Senate Democrats drove filibuster change - By Michael A. Memoli

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------------------

If you thought you were going to read a news story, you would be wrong. I know it looks like a news article. But it's not. Nor is it "analysis," or even "opinion." It's advocacy. It's a troubling trend in the Old Media. They're losing power, readership, and advertising dollars, so they're turning to the ones they have given cover to for decades: The political Left. 

"Dance with the one that brung ya" is how the old saying goes. The Old Media, desperate to keep their influence, are now openly writing advocacy pieces and calling it news. They expect payback in terms of access, favors, and legal carve-outs, like officially defining the legal status of what is a journalist.

The Old Media is crumbling, largely due to consumers having increasing access to differing points of view. The Old Media is monolithic in its uniformity, comfortable in its positions of power, and not used to being challenged. They hate diversity of opinion. On-line news, blogs, opinion sites, and websites dedicated to exposing media bias have the Old Media running for cover. 

So we have this "news" piece that clearly advocates a point of view. Interestingly, it's about how the Senate has eliminated the filibuster in certain situations. The Democrats in the Senate are reacting to trends in exactly the same way the Old Media is reacting to trends: They are trying to muzzle those who disagree so that their agenda can be pushed through. Read on:

---------------------------------------------  

Tribune Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON — After pushing through one of the most significant rule changes in Senate history, Majority Leader Harry Reid struck a solemn tone: “This is not a time for celebration.”

But behind closed doors in a room off the Senate floor, some of the newer Democratic senators couldn’t help themselves, gathering for a quick party to congratulate one another. They were the ones largely responsible for pushing the veteran Nevada lawmaker to pull the trigger on ending filibusters against most presidential nominations.

The partisan revelers were part of a new breed of Democrats emerging in the Senate. Mostly elected after 2006, these relative newcomers have only known a Democratic-controlled Senate and have little experience with successful bipartisan cooperation, due largely to the tea party’s grip on the Republican Party. (First skewed example: It is the fault of the TEA Party. This is a political perspective, not a reporting of fact. In fact, Democrats have had such unencumbered power for so many decades, they simply don't know what to do with people who have another perspective. They've never had opposition. But now that there is a significant enough faction that opposes their agenda, they can do only what they know: Vilify, denigrate, name-call, dismiss, and impugn. 

This is always what the Left does when confronted with intellectual diversity. They are so convinced they are right that anyone who opposes them is not only wrong, but eeevil. So here we have Democrats wielding unilateral power to beat down the opposition so as to have their way, and it's the fault of the TEA Party!)

Now they are hoping to become a new power center in the party, nudging the old guard to adopt more aggressive tactics in pursuit of legislative goals and largely brushing aside Republican threats of retaliation and obstruction. They see the rules and traditions of the Senate as having stifled the will of the majority and stalled President Barack Obama’s agenda.(It's all about the agenda for the Left. Bipartisanship, collegiality, compromise, and getting along are one-way streets, something expected of Republicans. It's always been this way, and the Republicans have always yielded. But now we have Republicans who not only are not interested in Democrat-lite, they want their own agenda. However, the power-brokers in D.C., who have never known anything other than being in the majority, cannot countenance working side-by-side with these backward, anti-progress, hateful TEA Partiers.

The writer of the article treats it as if it were a recent development. It's been this way for decades, however. Democrats play for keeps. The rules are only valuable when they advance the cause. It's a fight to the death for them. Republicans, however, play by the rules and are shocked when the Democrats don't play that way. It's only in recent years that the Republicans have timidly started to show a backbone. Presently, they still wither away rather quickly, but it must be a disturbing thing for the Democrats to see this development.  I'm sure they want to nip it in the bud, and one way is to remove the power of the filibuster.) 

“The Senate is a graveyard for good ideas,” Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), who along with Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon led the filibuster reform effort and won over veteran colleagues in a body where seniority was once the most valuable currency.

This newer class of Democrats came to Washington, not unlike the tea party Republicans, with a strong commitment to their ideals and policy goals. But while the tea party rule in the House has been characterized by attempts to stifle the president’s agenda, Democrats see their goal as helping to implement it. (This rather meek concession by the writer belies the fact that the TEA Party and the new Senate Democrats are basically after the same thing: their own agenda. But there is an implicit value judgment present in the article, that all these "good ideas" are finding their end, and it's the fault of the TEA Partiers for spoiling these noble democratic initiatives.)

Thursday’s action to limit the use of filibusters — seen as so drastic it was termed the “nuclear option” — shows they are willing to carve out a different path to get there. ("A different path," Hmmm? How innocuous. The Senate is purposefully stifling dissent in order to get their way. The only way to describe this is a to call it a power grab.)

“There’s a time to reach across the aisle and there’s a time to hold the line,” said Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., the body’s youngest member at 40, who was elected in 2012. “And I think so far this year Democrats in the Senate have done a very good job of mixing across-the-aisle compromise with some heretofore unseen spine stiffening.” (I challenge the Senator to point out one area in which the Democrats have compromised.)

The time has come for Democrats to take a harder stance against the tea party Republicans, he said.

“These folks have come to Washington to destroy government from within (It's always a bad thing for Democrats when government is limited. They hate it when they can't accumulate more and more power. The Left loves to tell people what to do. They cannot accept people who want to take this power away.) and will use any tool at their disposal,” Murphy said. “To the extent that we have the ability to take tools away from the tea party, we should do it. And one of the tools was the filibuster. Another was the belief that Democrats would cave in the face of another shutdown or debt default.”

For Murphy, the failure of the Senate gun control bill earlier this year was the final straw. He took on the issue of gun violence after the Newtown school shooting in his state in 2012. A bipartisan bill crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., had 55 votes but failed to advance. ("...shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me.)

“I was a proponent of filibuster reform coming into the Senate, but I became a revolutionary on this issue when we lost the gun bill,” Murphy said.

The group also includes Elizabeth Warren, elected last fall in Massachusetts. Her firebrand style and unabashed liberalism have energized the party’s left wing.

The senators’ influence has already been seen in other fights, most recently in the 16-day shutdown, when new Democrats lobbied party leaders to stand up to Republicans — a tactic that seemed to shock many on the other side of the aisle, who were betting that Democrats would blink first. (They rarely, if ever, blink. The Democrats never yield, never compromise, never give up on their big government agenda. What they can't get all at once they get incrementally. But they always get it. Anyone who opposes them is worse than satan. 

But beyond that, I doubt the Republicans expected the Democrats to blink. In fact, it was the Republicans who caved.)

Next on their agenda is extending the filibuster rule change from presidential appointments to legislation, which would enable the Senate to move on issues including gun control and climate change.

At times, their advocacy has presented challenges to the administration. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, elected in 2006, circulated a letter among his colleagues urging the president to appoint Janet Yellen — not Lawrence H. Summers — as Federal Reserve chair because Summers’ banking policies were viewed as having contributed to the financial meltdown. About a third of the party, including Merkley and Warren, signed it. Yellen is now on track to take the post after advancing this week from the Senate Banking Committee, with Brown and Warren’s support.

And Senate confirmation is virtually assured, thanks to the new rule change against filibusters.

“The Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party definitely are showing that they have growing influence in the caucus, and in government in general,” (Actually, growing tendency to make raw power grabs. They don't even bother to fancy it up in calls for bipartisanship anymore.) said Matt Wall of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a group that works to promote progressive candidates and issues in Democratic primaries. On Friday, Warren circulated a fundraising letter to supporters on behalf of Merkley and Udall, thanking them for their role in changing the rule. Both men face reelection in 2014.

The changing Democratic tactics may reflect a generational shift occurring in the Senate. It’s almost certain that by the start of the next Congress in 2015, more than half of the Democratic caucus will have been elected since 2008, when gridlock reached new heights. But nine of the new Senate Democrats are former Congress members, all of whom served at least part of their time under Republican majorities. Three were governors who served with Republican legislatures. (This "generational shift" is simply putting unabashed Leftists in place of secret ones. There is no change in attitude, tactics, or ideology. The only difference is this new crop is happy to dispense with the pretense of fairness and compromise. But notice the parallel TEA Party trends are not dealt with in such a friendly manner.)

The shift among Democrats has at times confounded Republicans, particularly on the filibuster issue. Aides to Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the third-longest serving Republican, said they had felt that Reid’s most recent moves telegraphing the nuclear option were a bluff.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., on Thursday railed against the actions of “uninitiated newcomers in the Democratic caucus,” reminding them they had never served in the minority in the Senate. Those who have a longer memory “should know better,” he added.

Six-term Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan was the only Democrat to speak out against his party’s move, citing the late institutionalist Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and Robert C. Byrd in arguing against tinkering with long-standing rules.

“Before we discard the uniqueness of this great institution, let us use the current rules and precedents of the Senate to end the abuse of the filibuster,” said Levin, who will retire after next year.

But those pushing for the rule change won over one Democratic stalwart.

“There are many of us that really wanted to keep things the way they were, because that’s the way they were,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “One thing I know: that you learn from history. And right now we can’t let the present be the future. So you’ve got to make the change, or this becomes a body that doesn’t mutate.” (Feinstein is extremely Left. I suppose she's happy that she no longer needs to pretend to be reasonable and moderate. Oh, and more than 90% of mutations are harmful...)

Social Security invests in the American people - letter by Alan McCormick

This is the latest in a long string of missives from various people, which began with an editorial written by Joe Balyeat, a local CPA. In it he rightly described Social Security as an unfunded liability, which precipitated a hysterical howl of indignation.

Julie Quenemoen was one such person, She wrote a response to Mr. Balyeat, which can be found at the same link along with my commentary. I distilled that commentary into a letter to the editor, found below. A response was printed in today's Chronicle, and also reproduced below. My comments in bold.

You may need to go back to the original link and read it first in order to understand the exchange.

-------------------------------------
My letter to the editor:

One might hope that Julie Quenemoen would think twice before debating economics with a CPA. It wouldn't be so bad if she entered the fray with something more than talking points, but no such luck.

She asserts that Social Security is funded. Sorry, it isn’t. It appears that she really believes that these budgetary and financing tricks are legitimate.

Permit me to explain. The Social Security Trust Fund is the receptacle for SS revenues. The government makes payment for all benefits, and the balance represents the surplus.

That surplus is then used to purchase special Treasury Bonds that only the Treasury can redeem, and only the Trust Fund can purchase. Bonds are debt instruments, IOUs. They must be paid back, plus interest.

Therefore, there is no money in the Trust Fund.

Once the bonds are issued, the money is added to the General Fund and spent. Yes, SS is not part of the budget, but the obligation to pay back the bonds is, sourced from the General Fund.

Further, she has no right to "her" funds. In Fleming v. Nestor (1960), the Supreme Court held that that there is no right to benefits because Congress has the power to decrease, discontinue, or increase benefits at will.

SS is nothing more than a tax with a promised future benefit. Her money is gone; it paid for someone else’s retirement.

If only Republicans wanted to use SS to reduce the national debt. If only. The debt is higher because of what Congress is doing and has been doing for decades. All that money is long gone, but the bonds are still there, and our grandchildren will pay for them.

So, Ms. Quenemoen, SS has indeed added many dimes to the debt. As far as “hands off our Social Security,” well, that train has left the station.

----------------------------------

Alan McCormick's response:

Social Security is a trust we have with our government, one of many such trusts. It’s hard to understand why insurance agent Rich negates the importance  and viability of insurance. (I made no comment about the importance and viability of insurance.) 

It’s built on contract and trust, just like our Social Security system. (No, the SS system, as I described, is built on accounting tricks. There is no contract for SS, which was the point of me citing Flemming Vs. Nestor. All Mr. McCormick offers is a summary contradiction with no facts, data, or logic.) 

We don’t abandon our car insurance if we don’t have an accident. We don’t claim our homeowner’s insurance is broken and needs to be dismantled when we don’t cash in on damage. (This particular argument mystifies me. Usually when people offer a metaphor, it illustrates some aspect of the debate by offering an enlightening comparison. However, I claimed that my "homeowner's insurance is broken" because there is no real money in reserves to pay claims, not that I haven't had a claim.) 

Why do we pick away at Social Security and claim it won’t be there for our kids and grandkids when they will need it, too? (Why would we pick away at a system that has no money in it and is functionally bankrupt? That is the question that puzzles Mr. McCormick? This is the point, sir. The system is broken, and it won't be there for our kids and grandkids!) 

A whole generation is graduating into jobs with lower wages in a difficult labor market. We should be making Social Security better, and we can do this. (If only Congress was interested in making it better, but no such luck.) 

America is a can do nation! We should allow survivor benefits for students through college. (Oh, that'll help improve it. He wants people to be able to suck even more benefits out of it!) 

Currently, they end at age 18.

I get the sense that some would like to grab our $2.7 trillion trust fund to write down debt, but that wouldn’t help everyday people, nor the economy. (Mr. McCormick glosses right over my direct statement: "If only Republicans wanted to use SS to reduce the national debt." Did he not read this? Or does he intend to persist in his template without regard to what someone already pointed out?) 

Let’s use our money wisely and invest it in people. That’s what Social Security does. (*Sigh* My letter pointed out that there is no money in the Trust Fund. It's becoming clear to me that either Mr. McCormick did not read the letter, or he is intentionally ignoring what I wrote. I know I've pointed this out before, but this is the way the Left thinks. Today is a new day. Nothing has happened before. Every crisis is new, so we must do something. Every refutation offered to them never happened. Every failure is because we didn't do anything before. Arrrgh!)

It pays out small amounts of money to beneficiaries each month, like microfinancing for retirees, disabled people and survivors. The average payment to Montanans in 2012 was $1,088/mo. And what do you think these people do? One-third of seniors rely solely on Social Security to pay for housing, heat and food. Another third of seniors count on SS for half or more of their income; they can occasionally buy a gift for the grandkids, or go visit them. Only that last one-third of seniors is not deeply dependent on this monthly check. (Hmm. 1/3 of current recipients do not need it? Didn't he just say our kids and grandkids will need if? So, do people need it or not? What exactly is Mr. McCormick trying to say?)

Let’s help our Social Security system last another 78 years. Let’s make it stronger! (Exactly the point of my letter. The SS system is a shell game, a ponzi scheme which will come crashing down. Since I did not advocate ending SS in my letter, it should be clear to Mr. McCormick that I was simply pointing out a weakness that must be addressed. 

Once again we find to our dismay a Leftist who is unable to comprehend an argument and offer an on-topic, cogent, substantial rebuttal. Do you see anything in Mr. McCormick's letter that even addresses what I wrote? Me neither.)

Alan McCormick

Manhattan

Pa. pastor unrepentant over officiating at son’s gay wedding

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------

(This minister is in open defiance of the General Rules of his denomination. Regardless of our opinions regarding gay marriage, we must acknowledge that this minister has a duty to uphold the standards of the organization to which he claims allegiance. If he cannot do so, he should leave the organization.

Even after being found guilty of breaking church law, he persists in his rebellion. By any standard, a defiant, rebellious minister is unsuitable for the ministry. 

------------------------------- SPRING CITY, Pa. (AP) — A United Methodist minister convicted of breaking church law by officiating at the same-sex wedding of his son said Tuesday he is unrepentant, declaring he has been called by God to be an advocate for the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people. (God calls people to political positions?)

The Rev. Frank Schaefer, testifying at the penalty phase of his church trial in southeastern Pennsylvania, also refused to promise he wouldn’t perform another same-sex union. (He therefore needs to leave the Church. He has no other alternative.)

The church “needs to stop judging people based on their sexual orientation. (There's that well worn leftist hammer blow: judging. The Left never tires of its favorite biblical misrepresentation. But more to the point, hasn't Rev. Schaefer just made a judgment about the Church? Why aren't his judgments bad?) We have to stop the hate speech. We have to stop treating them as second-class Christians,” he told a jury of fellow United Methodist pastors.

A day after convicting him, the 13-member jury reconvened to decide his punishment following a church trial that has renewed debate over the denomination’s policies on homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Schaefer donned a rainbowcolored stole on the witness stand and told jurors it symbolized his commitment to the cause.

“I will never be silent again,” he said, as some of his supporters wept in the gallery. “This is what I have to do.” (Well, he can be just as talkative as he wants. That is his right. However, the Church is not required to grant him a podium.)

His declarations put him in jeopardy of being defrocked.

Jon Boger, who filed the initial complaint against Schaefer, was outraged by the pastor’s recalcitrance.

“Frank Schaefer sat here and openly rebuked the United Methodist Church, its policies, standards and doctrines,” Boger said. (Exactly. Rev. Schaefer is engaging in judgment, apparently unaware of his own irony.

The Left never tolerates other points of view. It cannot leave people alone. A church is a voluntary association of people pursuing their private, consensual concerns. This is unacceptable to the Left. The Left demands absolute conformity throughout society. What it cannot achieve via external pressure it will attempt via infiltration. And because most people are tolerant and accepting, they allow these infiltrators a forum. Once they have acquired power, they begin to dismantle the organization, rebuilding it into their vision. 

If people value their churches, their traditions, and their institutions, they would literally show these people the door at the first sign of trouble. There is no virtue in allowing usurpers into their midst. Remember, wolves in sheep's clothing, anyone?)

Kshama Sawant: Return of the Alternative - Why You Must Vote for a Real, Genuine Socialist

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. Original article found here. My comments in bold.
------------------------------
I found this article accidently. Though Ms. Sawant has since won the election, I thought it would be useful to examine the thinking process of a self-avowed socialist.
------------------------------------

by Charles Mudede

For the first time in my life, I will vote for a candidate who actually holds my political views. Her name is Kshama Sawant. She is running for the city council seat held by Richard Conlin. She, like me, is a socialist. She, like me, sees no future, in environmental terms, for a capitalist market system that's not regulated by democratic institutions, (This is the fundamental false premise on which socialism is based, and it's a typical leftist approach to rhetoric. The capitalist market system is not unregulated. It never has been. There is no such thing as unregulated capitalism, and in fact, capitalism cannot exist outside an environment of the rule of law. Capitalism REQUIRES laws to punish wrongdoers, create contracts, and establish the rules of the game.) 

and believes that the solutions to many of our social problems (lack of real police accountability, lack of meaningful investments in public modes of transportation, and lack of adequate protection from financial and other job- related risks) will be found on the open terrain of class struggle. 

When I turned 18 in Zimbabwe, I had no reason to vote, because the president of that country, who claimed to be a Marxist, was in fact a tribalist, a dictator, and really quite mad. (The problem with implemented socialism in a nutshell: It invests too much power in the hands of people who cannot be held accountable.) 

(The joke at the time: You can vote for Bob, Bobby, or Robert Mugabe.) As for the US, after I became a citizen in 2005, the politicians I voted for were loosely or distantly committed to core socialist principles. Patty Murray, Barack Obama, and even Mike McGinn were on the left of American politics, but none were deaf to the loud and constant demands of the rich and their moneymaking mania. (Socialism ultimately means, to use Karl Polanyi's words, "the subordination of the economy to society.") (And none of them ever will be as long as government has so much power to dictate the flow of money in society. An avowed socialist is simply more of the same.)

Obama really does believe in the greatness of a free and competitive market, (I frankly doubt this.) 

Murray helps Boeing obtain defense contracts, and McGinn (though far better and more liberal than Ed Murray) is at the end of the day a deficit hawk (apparently a bad thing...) 

who has and will cut jobs to balance the city's budget.

None of these politicians would be in power today if they, like Sawant, were members of an actual socialist party. (Ah, there we have it. The Left must hide its agenda, because no one would vote for them if they said what they really want to do. Here we have a tacit admission that socialism is not only unpopular, it is unpalatable. And this despite decades of indoctrination by leftists in positions of power.)

Indeed, Sawant's rise in the local political world has the potential to generate international attention. During a recent phone conversation I had with Leo Panitch, the editor of the Socialist Register, a journal that was cofounded by none other than Ralph Miliband (yes, the father of the current leader of Britain's Labour Party, Ed Miliband—unlike his father, Ed is no socialist), he expressed great amazement and enthusiasm when I shared the news that an actual socialist had a chance of winning a significant political position in Seattle. "Wow, that's just fantastic... That's phenomenal," said Panitch. Now why would a world-famous and influential socialist like Panitch, who recently coauthored an excellent book, The Making of Global Capitalism, published by Verso (the most highly regarded radical leftist publisher in the English-speaking world), be so impressed with what appears to be a minor political achievement of a virtually unknown economics professor? (I'll answer that. Because socialism is so bad, so wrong, so corrupted, so murderous, so destructive, that no one in their right mind would want it.) 

To appreciate the answer to this question, we need a little historical background.

Let's begin with a British economist named John Maynard Keynes. At the end of World War II, Keynes provided Western governments with a great solution to the real internal and external threat of socialism—internally in the form of the labor movements (that were radicalized by the Great Depression) and externally by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (which emerged from the war as a new superpower). Keynes's solution: Give workers higher wages, reliable social welfare programs, and a real shot at the middle class, and basically they will shut up and be nicer to rich people. (Ummm, yeah. These things are exactly what Ms. Sawant, as a socialist, is in favor of. The author injects a bit of editorializing when he says, "be nicer to rich people." This is not a feature of Keynes' theory, nor has it ever been a feature of social democracy. Therefore, this little canard, inserted to suggest the difference between socialism and social democracy, is moot. In fact, there is no difference between socialism and social democracy in kind, only in degree.) 

This solution, which is called social democracy (or Keynesianism or demand-side economics), was implemented and in 1947 initiated in the US, Europe, and Japan a long period of great economic performance that's now called the Golden Age of Capitalism. (He attributes, without evidence, the post war economic boom to social democracy. I would suggest that the boom happened in spite of social democracy, largely because the most egregious parts of social democracy [like Social Security] hadn't had enough time at that point to weigh down the economy as they are doing now.)

Socialism in the West could not compete with social democracy, (Because it wasn't and because socialism cannot compete with any system that allows people to freely choose and freely associate. Socialism is contrary to human nature.) 

and it also wanted to distance itself from the USSR, whose leaders turned out to be nothing more than criminals. (Example #2 of corruption in socialism. This suggests to me that the author is not operating in reality. He seems to think that the corruption in socialistic societies is not because of socialism. But I guarantee you he thinks that corruption in capitalistic societies is because of capitalism.)

But then something bad happened to social democracy in the early '70s. The rich became convinced that the high wages being handed to workers were exerting greater and greater downward pressure on their profits. (An unsupported claim.)

This belief, which was not in fact correct (but that's another story for another time), led to the rise of a new economic program, neoliberalism (or supply-side economics), that basically attacked labor, aggressively privatized state institutions, and ripped social services to pieces. (None of this happened.) 

Keynesianism was eventually replaced by neoliberalism in the early '80s. (No, keynesianism is still the predominate economics philosophy embraced by government to this day.)

In the US, this moment is called "the Reagan revolution." (The Reagan revolution was a short-lived success, an aberration, in fact. Keynesian liberalism was able to beat down the benefits of Reagan's greatness. The Reagan revolution was never able to do more than co-exist with big government liberalism.)

After the fall of the Soviet Union in the late '80s, Margaret Thatcher's famous declaration, "There is no alternative" (also known as TINA), became a fact of life. Social democracy, socialism, communism, it was said, had all been tried and failed. (Quite true.)

Concern for workers' rights and wages proved to be a bad foundation for economic policies. (Artfully phrased. However, it's never been about concern for workers' rights and wages, it's about the rising up of the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeois. A socialist ought to know this. Unless, of course, he's doing what the Left typically does, hiding his true agenda.) 

From now on, the rich would be the real job creators. (This has always been the case. People with money are the ones who can afford to pay people to do the work. Poor people do not hire anyone.) 

"Adolph Reed [a black American political scientist and contributor to the Nation] described [this] situation as capitalism in a moment of no working-class opposition," Sam Gindin, the coauthor of The Making of Global Capitalism, explained to me during a phone conversation.

But check this out: Because capitalism became our only reality, (As mentioned before, capitalism has not been our reality at all.) 

all people ever saw in the papers, on TV, and on the internet was the devastation and misery it causes. (It is true that the horror stories are celebrated in the media, because the media is largely Left. But it is not true that the misery and devastation was caused by capitalism.) 

There was the Mobutu-level corruption of Enron, the expensive wars for oil and Halliburton's stockholders, the spectacular rise of student debt, the Hurricane Katrina mess, the crash of 2008, the bailout of the rich, the foreclosures in poor and middle-class neighborhoods, and so on and so on. (Each of these events was caused by people who violated capitalism.) 

Everyone has forgotten the propaganda images of bland food, ugly cars, and long lines in the former Eastern Bloc. But everyone can easily recall the images of a major capitalist corporation spewing millions of gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico and creating an oil slick that was visible from space. (Does the writer not remember Chernobyl? If he wants to attribute an oil spill to capitalism, he must attribute Chernobyl to socialism. The fact is, neither event is a political eventuality.)

Suddenly, calling someone a socialist seemed not as bad as calling someone a capitalist. Teabaggers could throw the word socialism at Obama or Obamacare, and it just did not stick or have much of an effect. Occupy protesters, however, could call Wall Street bankers capitalists, and the word not only stuck, but hurt. Indeed, in 2010, the Texas Board of Education voted to replace the word "capitalism" in school texts with the much friendlier term "free-enterprise system." (The Left has been using the word capitalism as an epithet for decades, aided by a complicit media and punched up by leftist academics. All we have here is a statement of the success of leftist propaganda.)

It is in this context that Sawant, who is a member of a real-deal socialist party, the Socialist Alternative (which is also running a competitive candidate for a council seat in Minneapolis, Ty Moore), has risen from obscurity to the mainstream of Seattle politics. True, the Socialist Alternative party is running a smart campaign, and Sawant is a smart candidate, and the idea to focus on tangible campaign agendas such as pay increases, rent control, and taxing the rich is proving to be efficacious. And true, Socialist Alternative's program has the kind of political pragmatism that many find absent from the Socialist Workers Party—a local group that has a reputation for promoting ideas and programs that even most on the left find downright kooky. (Sawant's positions and rhetoric, by and large, are indistinguishable from what a typical Democrat believes. It turns out that the only real difference is she's being a little more honest about what she intends. Just a little.)

But the Socialist Alternative savvy is also being rewarded by a political climate that is less hostile to socialist-leaning programs like universal health care, progressive taxes, and affordable higher education. Indeed, many basic government programs like Medicaid and Social Security are by their very nature socialist. (Bingo.)

It's no accident that the period of the greatest economic growth in the US was between 1947 and 1973, the peak moment for social democracy. (Correlation is not causation.)

For the past 30 years, we have given capitalism everything it wants—low taxes, low wages, budget cuts— (This is so false as to be laughable.) 

and in return, all we got back are demands for even lower taxes, lower wages, and deeper budget cuts. What if for once we just stopped giving capitalism anything? How bad would that be? TINA? There is an alternative. Her name is Sawant. Vote for her.

(He never did tell use why we must vote for a real, genuine socialist?, did he?)

My Fix for What Ails the GOP - By Joe Scarborough - Parade Magazine

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------------

(Parade Magazine is certainly not a hard news organization, but that doesn't mean it isn't trying to influence the debate. It routinely lionizes Democrats and gives a platform to moderate Republicans, or offers fluff history lessons.

Last Sunday's piece from Joe Scarborough is no exception.

-----------------------------------

With the Republicans’ anemic approval ratings, (Wait! The first misdirection, only 6 words into the introduction! Congressional Democrats have an approval rating of 26%, while the Republicans are 21%. Funny how part of the truth can be a falsehood, isn't it?)

the conservative (No, Mr. Scarborough is clearly a moderate, which anyone who has ever watched his show can attest.) 

cohost of MSNBC’s Morning Joe calls on his party to reject extremism. (Bingo! In the space of one sentence the conservative moniker is applied then self-refuted. It is the oft-repeated meme of the center/Left that we should reject extremism. And naturally, there are only extremists on the Right.)

For the GOP to win big again, it must take William F. Buckley’s ruthlessly pragmatic approach to primary elections. In Buckley’s view “conservatism, except when it is expressed in pure idealism, takes into account reality.” (I was unable to locate this quote. The only google search results for it came from Mr. Scarborough's own article. The closest I could come was this: "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." If this is the quote that Mr. Scarborough is referencing, we can see that his point falls flat on its face, for this quote does not mention conservatism.) 

That means we have to stop electing amateurs who serve as little more than ideological indulgences, who exploit resentments that play well enough among the base, but whose positions make them nonviable in general elections. (The Left never gets advice like this. Indeed, they never compromise for the sake of getting elected. They never get criticized for being too extreme. It is always the conservatives who are extreme, who need to moderate and compromise. And, I think we could benefit by a bunch more amateurs in Congress. I'm definitely unimpressed by where the professionals have taken us.) 

Had the party followed Buckley’s advice in 2010 and supported the most electable conservatives instead of the most ideologically extreme, Republicans would now control the United States Senate and Democratic leader Harry Reid would be in retirement in Nevada. (This is speculation. As a matter of fact, conservatives have always won the battle of ideas when those ideas are presented in an articulate manner. The weakness of the Left always manifests in the face of well-presented conservative ideas, because all the Left can do is sputter and name call.)

This is a lesson I learned the hard way: I spoke out against the possibility of Colin Powell’s presidential candidacy in 1996 because his political moderation was so off-putting to me. (Why was it off-putting?) 

The thought that he could be the standard-bearer of my Republican Party was offensive. But watching the retired general on Meet the Press in recent years has made me understand why Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush drafted him to a be a critical player in their administrations. (Um, yeah. He was military, and then Secretary of State. He was not "drafted" for his political opinions. In fact, no one knew about them until he retired.) 

In retrospect I realize how much better the GOP would have fared against Bill Clinton in 1996 if I had not let my hopes for a conservative stalwart get in the way of our best hope to beat Clinton. (Whaa? Bob Dole, a flaming moderate, was the Republican candidate! The Republicans have been taking Mr. Scarborough's advice all along and losing every time!) 

“If it’s just going to represent the far right wing of the political spectrum, I think the party is in difficulty,” said Powell this year. “I’m a moderate, but I’m still a Republican.” (He voted for Obama twice!)

This war hero, who has made history of his own by becoming the first African-American chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, should still be one of the leading voices in the party because of, not in spite of, his centrist political philosophy. (Hmm. Like John McCain and Mitt Romney? These are the voices that should predominate? So we can lose yet again? By the way, I wonder if Mr. Scarborough can tell us how well the moderates in the Democratic party fare?) 

Republicans can kick moderates like General Powell out of the party’s mainstream (By definition Powell is not the party's mainstream. He is a moderate, which is to the left of the Republican mainstream.) 

and drive them into the arms of the Democratic Party every four years, or they can leave their ideological comfort zone, work aggressively to expand their political coalitions, and start stealing swing voters away from Democrats like Hillary Clinton. (Hillary wouldn't have a chance in hell against a principled, articulate, fearless conservative.)

Unfortunately, the Republican Party of the moment bears little resemblance to the party of Ronald Reagan, (These appeals to Reagan by leftists and moderates are just about worn out. I am always amazed at how the most hated president can alternately be a hero and a cad. Reagan's unapologetic, articulate conservatism bears no resemblance to the anchorless moderates with no convictions whatsoever. Reagan would have called Powell back to fold, and it would be Powell who would compromise, not Reagan.)

who would have responded to Powell’s critiques of the Republican Party with an all-hands-on-deck effort to win the war hero back. That’s because President Reagan lived by the belief that “just because I’m your friend 80 percent of the time doesn’t make me your enemy 20 percent of the time.”

If the Republican party is big enough to reach out to disaffected moderates like Colin Powell, then it will be big enough to win the White House in 2016, even if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. The question is whether the GOP will go the way of Buckley or Glenn Beck. (As we have already seen, this is a false choice based on false assumptions.)

Republicans can win again and we will. And we can do it by following the right paths of Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. We can do it by fighting for the core principles of conservatism and emphasizing values that most Americans agree with. (Wait. He has just spent his entire piece criticizing those core principles of conservatism. How do we fight for something, but we must willingly give it up for the sake of winning elections? I wonder if Mr. Scarborough has spent too much time with the D.C. elites.)

There will also be times when we will follow the lead of Reagan and Eisenhower by putting principled pragmatism before ideological battles that undermine our ability to win elections, elect majorities, and take back control of the White House. But time is wasting. Hillary Clinton’s supporters are already preparing for political battle. Next time, we’d better be prepared to win. There is no substitute for victory, and I for one am damn tired of my party losing presidential elections. (We've been losing elections by offering moderates. Does this guy even think before he writes?)

Article 3. Whether Christianity enabled the rise of science in the West - TOF blog

Article found here. This is an excellent response to typical atheist objections to the nature of science as it relates to Christianity.

-------------------------
Proœmium. TOF apologizes for the sub-par statements of the objections in this Article, but they have been taken directly from the Jerry Coyne blogpost that initiated the Question,

He blogs: Here are some of my responses to the “science came from Christianity” canard.  A canard is "an unfounded rumor or story," which is a heckuva thing to say about scientists of the stature of Whitehead and Davies, let alone of historians of science like Grant, Lindberg, et al., who may indeed have had some foundation for their historical analyses. Well, it could have been worse. Coyne could have said it was a 'meme,' an invisible sky fairie in which many Late Moderns believe.  

(Coyne's objections followed by TOF's replies:)

Reply to Objection 1.  Even were it true, it doesn’t in any way support the truth claims of Christianity or any other religion.

So what? The argument is that Christianity gave birth to science, not that the "truth claims" of Christianity are true. It doesn't matter if it is true that physical bodies can act directly on other physical bodies as the Christians believed.  It only matters that they believed it.

But it is significant that this seems to be the first response that comes to Coyne's mind.

Reply to Objection 2.   Christianity was around for a millennium without much science being done; “modern” science really started as a going concern in the 17th century. Why did that take so long if Christianity was so important in fostering science?

It is hard to know if Coyne is serious about this, but he may be no more familiar with history than he is with philosophy. Has he not heard of the barbarian Volkerwanderungen? The collapse of the Latin economy after the jihad cut the West off from the East? The consequent withering of the towns? As fast as the Europeans wrote things down, the Saracens, Vikings, and Magyars would burn them up. For that matter, does an evolutionary biologist not appreciate the fact that in history nothing happens overnight?

Perhaps he is thinking that not much engineering was being done, since many people believe that technology is science.  But really, you have to embed reason and causation in the common consciousness before you can build CERN.  Cultural influences are not magic.

Modern science began in the 17th century because the Renaissance was a dead zone for science. The Revolution consisted of subordinating science to engineering and industry.  (Read Bacon, Descartes, Boyle, et al.) That is, science was to be judged by how useful it was for extending Man's dominion over the universe, not for how it might enlighten our understanding of it. The widespread technological innovation of the Middle Ages was done independently of natural philosophy -- by engineers rather than scientists. Even so, we can mark such things as Albertus Magnus' work on botany and his identification of the chemical arsenic; Albert of Saxony's idea of uplift as a counter force to erosion; Buridan's theory of impetus (momentum) and his formulation of "Newton's" first law. Bradwardine's proof of the mean speed theorem and Oresme's use of geometry to demonstrate it graphically. Grosseteste's development of the archetypal scientific method and his suggestion that light was the first form to come to matter, starting as a pinpoint and expanding to make the universe. Peter Maricourt's laws of magnetism; a whole cartload of work on optics, Jordanus' solution to motion on an inclined plane, the invention of fractions (admittedly mathematics, not science). More information can be found in Lindberg (15).

The 14th century was poised to kick things off, but the Black Death kicked things off first and dropped the number of natural philosophers below critical mass. Not until the 17th century did Europe's population equal that of the 14th century. By then, the printing press (the medieval world's last great invention) had increased the velocity of ideas. Think of it like a nuclear pile.

Reply to Objection 3.  If you think of science as rational and empirical investigation of the natural world, it originated not with Christianity but with the ancient Greeks, and was also promulgated for a while by Islam.

This was addressed in Article 2.  We overestimate the role of rational and empirical investigation of  Nature in ancient Greece precisely because the medievals preferentially translated and copied ancient Greek writings in logic, mathematics, and natural philosophy (at the expense of ancient Greek liturgical texts, literature, etc.) Of course, a number of individual Greek philosophers studied nature, but science as we understand it is not the haphazard accumulation of factoids.

Science was not "promulgated ... by Islam." There were some muslim faylasuf -- typically from Spain or Persia -- who were enchanted by Aristotle, but their efforts were individual, tolerated by some rulers, repressed by others. The investigation of nature was never "institutionalized in the culture" as it was in the Latin West; it was never taught in the madrassas. Al-Kindi, ibn Rushd, and others loom larger in the Western imagination than in the House of Submission, where they were largely forgotten until modern times. As ibn Khaldûn wrote:

"The problems of physics are of no importance for us in our religious affairs or our livelihoods; therefore we must leave them alone."

A conversation with my Pastor

First, the note from my pastor:

Thank you to those who made the meeting last night, we have some serious things to put on the table. We have had several impartial visitors that have expressed how the packed feeling leaves them feeling uncomfortable. I know how exciting it is for me and for you, but for a new person it is something that can be quite intimidating.

When we moved into the community center we knew 2 services was going to be in our future, and maybe we should have just gone to two services to start with. I have noticed that we are not keeping our visitors, and I feel that the limited space has a lot to do with that. 2 services is definitely in our future, the question is when do we decide to make the switch.

We need to keep in mind our mission of Reaching, multiplying, and sending. What we are doing now is no longer reaching. If my first church experience consisted of a complete stronger sitting right next to me I probably wouldn't go back regardless of how much I liked the service. As a church person I could go into any church and this would not hinder me, but as an unbeliever searching, it could possibly stop my search.

I feel we need to put structure to this if we want to keep the unity we have recently found. As ministry leaders I want you to look at what this looks like for you. You are going to have to lead and structure your ministry so this works for you. This means using anyone who has offered to be used. We have to get better at delegating and multiplying ourselves.

I want to have a leadership meeting to hear from you as to when and how we need to make this move. I as much as anyone would love to keep it one service, but realize that is not an option anymore if we want to be a church that is bringing in the lost. At this meeting I don't want to here why or why not we should or shouldn't go to 2 services, I want to here what you and your team have structured and looked at in the case that we do. The last thing we need is disunity. I know the strain it causes, but we are here on earth to reach as many as we can with what we have been given, and that needs to be the focus of this meeting. I am not saying that it is something that will happen right away, but as leader of your ministry what would that look like if it did.

This is a core leadership meeting not a leaders meeting so please keep it as quite as possible so we don't hurt others feelings.

I'm thinking 6:30 at our house. Feel free to respond to me directly with your thoughts, but always keep the mission of this church primary. We are reaching people for His glory, and His alone.

I also will be talking this Sunday about community. I want to see some structure with connect groups that keep us all unified and on the same page. I would connect groups to start out with prayer, then discussion of message, then a time of application preferably in smaller groups possibly, but not limited to men and women. then close with a time of prayer as well. Sunday morning needs to be feeding the connect groups so we are all pushing in the same direction as a church.
--------------------------------
Then my initial response:

Please allow me to be direct. Your letter comes off as hostile. I apologize if you're offended at that.

You bring up many things, some of which greatly concern me. I will not attempt to discuss them here, however.

In actual fact, I am not sure how I want to proceed. I believe I will need to commit the issues to further prayer.
-------------------------------

Then my followup:

I've had some time to consider what I perceive to be the issues. Please note that none of this is intended as accusation.

The meeting you couldn't attend turned out to have spiritual import. It was a good discussion about real issues, honestly presented and carefully considered. I would say we gained some ground in the Spirit. Afterwards, there were people praying together and ministering to each other.

I was encouraged, not because we had developed some sort of action plan or made any decisions. That did not happen. What we did was something I've been hoping to see ever since I've been here: People were considering the spiritual implications of the matters, perhaps having been previously unaware of them, and then realizing in some cases that they had not committed them to prayer.

These people are good people. They are learning the ways of the Kingdom, perhaps in a way they haven't considered before. They started to realize that the problem wasn't the problem. They began to understand the spirit behind the issues. This is, for lack of a better word, something I would deem a breakthrough.

I've harped on some of this before, and I apologize for repeating myself: It's all about what the Spirit is saying and doing. We can still do all the right things, but without the Spirit, we "fight like a man beating the air." (1 Cor 9:26)

So that's why I responded to you the way I did. Hostile was a strong word, and in retrospect, and unfortunate choice. My reaction to your email was, I'm afraid, a little too visceral.

So anyway. This is the statement of concern: "At this meeting I don't want to here why or why not we should or shouldn't go to 2 services, I want to here what you and your team have structured and looked at in the case that we do." The fact of the matter is, there are good, solid people in leadership who have an opinion about this, and they deserve due honor. The idea that they should not speak about their discomfort is a shut door in the Spirit.

May I say, it felt like what was done at the meeting, the progress that was made, well, it seemed like it was undone. If people are going to take the risk and start walking in the Spirit, their baby steps need to be encouraged, not cut off. Your statement felt very unilateral, very cut-and-dried.

This church is at a crossroads. It's a good thing. Will it be a church that moves in the Spirit, or will it be a church that does the things that churches have always done? The reason I'm at this church is to help do the former. Like a gardener, I see the little bud of a flower and want to protect it and nurture it.

I'm not sure I've made any sense. I do hope I've conveyed that this is not about how many services we have. Frankly, I just don't care if people feel uncomfortable by sitting next to a stranger. The only thing I care about is the Presence of the Holy Spirit, His work in us, His plan for us, His anointing and power working through us. If the Holy Spirit is there, the people who show up won't care how many people are in the room.

Sorry for the long reply.
-----------------------------------

Then his reply:

Rich, in regards to my email, I had heard the meeting was great. The only reason I noted that at the meeting we don't discuss the when part of when we go to two services is that I want to see what this looks like from a practical standpoint before we just jump in and do it. After looking at the practicals we can then discuss what the Spirit wants to do. I do plan on this team giving their input in the discussion and in no way am trying to shut the door on the Spirit.

As to the meeting I wasn't there along with many on this team, and I was just trying to fill people in as to what I had given David to discuss. I don't want to let the disagreements on when and how we do this cause division and want to look at the practicals, and let the Holy Spirit lead us from there.

I in no way was offended by your email, and gladly accept your input. I too feel that we are at a crossroads, and am excited to see God move.

Seattle elects socialist to city council

My comments in bold.
--------------------
My sole reason for publishing this is simply to note that Ms. Sawant's political opinions are virtually indistinguishable from the Democrats. 

From wikipedia:

Sawant's core campaign issues were raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, implementing rent control, and instituting a millionaire's tax.^[20] She is also a supporter of single-payer health care, expanding public transit and bikeways, ending corporate welfare, ending racial profiling, reducing taxes on small businesses and homeowners, protecting public sector unions from layoffs, living wage union jobs, and social services.^[35]

From her own website. Indeed, any liberal/leftist/Democrat could have written this. 

I don't have much to say about her political philosophy, except to note that it is typical leftist kool-aid in its approach. False premises, illogic, non-sequiturs, and misrepresentations are the order of the day. You would think that socialists, for all their arrogance and moral superiority, would be able to put together a cogent, systematic world view. If you did, you would be wrong.
-----------------------------------

SEATTLE (AP) — Seattle voters have elected a socialist to city council for the first time in modern history.

Kshama Sawant’s lead continued to grow on Friday, prompting 16-year incumbent Richard Conlin to concede.

Even in this liberal city, Sawant’s win has surprised many here. Conlin was backed by the city’s political establishment. On election night, she trailed by four percentage points. She wasn’t a veteran politician, having only run in one previous campaign.

But in the days following election night, Sawant’s share of the votes outgrew Conlin’s.

“I don’t think socialism makes most people in Seattle afraid,” Conlin said Friday.

While city council races are technically nonpartisan, Sawant made sure people knew she was running as a socialist — a label that would be politically poisonous in many parts of the country.

Sawant, a 41-year-old college economics professor, first drew attention as part of local Occupy Wall Street protests that included taking over a downtown park and a junior college campus in late 2011. She then ran for legislative office in 2012, challenging the powerful speaker of the state House, a Democrat. She was easily defeated.

This year, though, she pushed a platform that resonated with the city. She backed efforts to raise the minimum wage to $15; called for rent control in the city where rental prices keep climbing; and supports a tax on millionaires to help fund a public transit system and other services.

“I will reach out to the people who supported Richard Conlin, working with everyone in Seattle to fight for a minimum wage of $15 (an) hour, affordable housing, and the needs of ordinary people,” Sawant said in a statement.