Hypocritical Family "Values"

Funny - I was more upset when I found out Nancy Grace was going to be a contestant on Dancing With The Stars than Chaz Bono, and I don't even watch the show. Lewis Black was on the same wavelength.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

A Vacation From Perspective

I'm kind of disgusted with the constant MSM drum beating about President Obama's vacation in Martha's Vineyard. He should cancel his vacation and sit in the Oval Office and wait for what? For Congress to come back to Washington in September? The bottom line is, no matter what the President does, it is Congress that creates and votes on legislation.

Now I thought I might be teetering on hypocrisy because back in the "good ol' days" I complained about Bush's vacation time, but it's time for a little perspective. In President Obama's 31 months in office, he has taken 61 vacation days. At the same point in their presidencies, Ronald Reagan had taken 112 days off and George W. Bush had taken 180 days off. In fact, it's laughable for a "news" outlet like Fox to whine and moan about Obama's time off when their guy took a combined THREE YEARS off out of his eight years in office. So, no. No hypocrisy. And I may be wrong, but don't remember seeing Bush's vacation time scrutinized nearly as much as what's happening now.

I'm not begrudging anyone their time off to recharge their batteries, especially when you have one of the toughest and most important jobs in the world. But what would your boss say if you took 6 months off in your first 2½ years of employment. Or the equivalent of 10 weeks of vacation time per year? It looks like President Obama's average of about 2½ weeks off per year is more in line with the rest of us plebeians, doesn't it?

Liberals vs. Christianity

POSTED BY DESERT CRONE

I am taking a long and winding road in this post because I think it is important to understand my spiritual journey and beliefs to understand the message in this piece. Little did I know that this post would have its roots in something my Twitter friend @JKelton1 tweeted the other night. Basically, she said that if she made the same derogatory statements about Muslims that many liberals make about Christians she would be called out as a bigot. Yet many liberals think those same kind of statements about Christians are acceptable. What an amazing observation. My wheels started turning, and so many thoughts and ideas sprung from her statement. The criticism of Christians comes from liberal Christians, atheists, and followers of other faiths. I frequently see on my tweeter timeline other liberals questioning the intelligence of those of us who believe in God. I see Christians calling out other Christians for their hypocrisy. I think if many of us were honest our faith or lack of faith has taken a long arduous path through uncertainty, questioning, guilt, and enlightenment. The truth is that Christians are different in their own beliefs, in their definition of God, and even how they view the Bible. Yes, there are many liberals who practice the Christian faith, and we need to rejoice in the fact that in our political party we have people who actually walk the walk of Christ instead of talking.

As for myself, my faith is personal. I rarely debate anyone about faith or lack of faith. I am making a rare exception in writing this post. One reason I refuse to debate is because usually civil discourse disappears 5 minutes into the discussion. Faith or lack of faith is a very intimate decision often times based on emotion, although I’m sure there are many exceptions. If someone asked me if I were a Christian, I could not answer yes or no, but that is the kind of answer many people expect. To some the Bible is the literal Word of God, and we all worship the same God. They believe that folks are saved by God’s Grace and by accepting Christ as Lord and Master. So if that is the standard for Christianity, then I would say no, I’m not a Christian. However, I believe the Bible is the most beautifully written book in literature—and believe me, since I have both a BA and MA in English, I have read some magnificent literature. I do not take the Bible literally, but I follow the teachings of Christ. Well, at least I try to follow them. The Bible is filled with contradictions and possibly propaganda, but this is my opinion about which I could be wrong. For example, one reason I believe this is that the same creation myth appeared long before the story of Adam and Eve as well as the virgin birth in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Yet, I do look to the Bible for guidance. After the loss of my wonderful father and the onset of one health problem after another, I read the story of Job. Job is about faith, not patience, and my faith was taking a beating, not because I blamed God but because I couldn’t feel God’s presence. I also don’t believe in magic, and of course, the Bible is filled with what I call magic. However, many of my friends do believe in miracles, and I totally respect that. I do not listen to them with skepticism. Faith is faith, period. You can’t argue someone out of faith with logic or reason or facts. If you do, then what they had was not faith.

I grew up in a small Southern Baptist Church in the Bible Belt of southeastern New Mexico. My dad taught Sunday school, and we religiously attended church. My mother, not my dad, was the biblical scholar in the family, and every Saturday night she taught my dad the lesson he was going to teach Sunday morning. As long as I can remember, my mother was a self-proclaimed agnostic and possibly an atheist by the time she died. One Sunday after church when I was in high school, my dad, sister, and I walked out of church never to return again. My dad said, “I’m tired of walking out of church feeling worse than when I went into church.” Although I was baptized in that church, I vowed I would never set foot in that Baptist church or any other Baptist church again. I went off to college and drank myself right into alcoholism.

I’m not recounting my story other to say I got drunk, acted like an ass, felt like crap, and then started the process over again. Eventually, my husband, daughter, and I moved to a northern New Mexico town where they attended a small liberal church. They were always trying to get me to go to church with them, and I eventually acquiesced. We struck a deal that when I went to church, my husband would take us out for Sunday dinner. I attended church with them as I continued my downward spiral into both alcohol and drug addiction. Spidery veins covered my face and my stomach was distended. I looked 50 although I was only 38 years old.

One Sunday I, who had denounced God or declared Him dead, prayed for help with my drinking. No, I didn’t want to quit because I was not an alcoholic. I just wanted to drink without getting drunk and feeling like crap the next day. Why I thought of prayer as an answer I do not know. Well, one week later I was in a rehab center in Oklahoma City and on my way to 25 years of sobriety thus far. In my journey through the 12 Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, reading what we call the Big Book, and attending meetings, I began an amazing spiritual quest. That quest was only intensified when I helped other drunks find their way to AA. About now, you may wonder what this has to do with my topic—well, a lot actually.

A young man named Steve whom I taught in both junior high and high school got clean and sober not too much longer after I did. I adored that child. He helped me facilitate the recovery group for students. In that group we shared our strengths, hopes, fears, and experiences. Needless to say, I heard stuff that would make most people’s hair curl. One snowy day a friend called me with the tragic news that Steve had died in a car crash on a slick Colorado pass. He was clean and sober. His death was so devastating to me that I cannot write about it now without tears running down my face. His funeral was to be held at the First Baptist Church in this northern NM town—not my church, but a Baptist church, nonetheless. Of course, I attended with hundreds of others from the recovery community. I learned in AA that if I heard only one good thing in a meeting, then it was a good meeting. I just instinctively listened and heard one of the most beautiful sermons I have ever heard in my life. It was a good meeting.

My epiphany that day was that if I open my heart and mind to any spiritual message, I will hear what I need to hear. And so now I come full circle. Do I believe in Jesus Christ? Yes. Do I believe that He is the Son of God? I just don’t know because that is part of my continuing journey. Do I believe in Heaven? Again, I don’t know, but I believe in Heaven on earth. When I do something good for the underprivileged, when I bring someone into AA, when I look at my husband, my children and grandchildren, I experience Heaven. My Higher Power is not a cruel, angry, vindictive God so I don’t believe in Hell. He didn’t take Steve from me or his loved ones because He wanted him in Heaven. Steve died because the driver took an icy curve much too fast. I don’t believe my Higher Power works that way.

I cannot think of a faith in the traditional sense of the word that doesn’t practice love and compassion, and yet, throughout history, those religions have been held captive by extremists at some point. Followers have also committed countless acts of unimaginable cruelty. Sometimes we liberals who are so quick to point out the failings in Christians overlook those same failings in people who practice other religions. And yes today, as in other religious faiths, we have extremists who have captured the Christian faith.

It’s not my place to question anyone’s faith or lack of faith because you can see I’m a pretty unconventional Christian. I have believed what Christ admonished us to do in Matthew 6:5-6 long before Rev. Al read the passage on MSNBC in context to the Rick Perry revival meeting. I believe my relationship with my God is personal and private, and I will not denigrate that relationship by proselytizing to all around me. I won’t refer to the Rick Perrys of the world as hypocrites since I am a practicing hypocrite. I don’t want to be nor try to be, but I’m a human with all the accompanying weakness and character flaws.

So I tell my story about my spiritual journey to demonstrate that we are influenced by our experiences and individuality. Also, to illustrate that Christian thought is probably as varied as Christians themselves. It is a mistake to condemn Christianity and its believers for the unconscionable way some who profess Christian faith behave. Instead, judge them by their actions and words. If you do that, you will see neighbors, friends, and family who help others on a daily basis without the need for praise or recognition.

Scarborough's Cognitive Dissonance

This morning I was fortunate enough to witness Joe Scarborough and the entire Morning Joe crew make fun of Michele Bachmann's John Wayne Gacy gaffe for a good four straight minutes and then immediately turn on a dime and mock bloggers for doing the very same thing.

It was mind numbingly astounding.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So, Joe, I won't make fun of yet another of Bachmann's gaffes, but I'll point out your hypocrisy for making fun of bloggers daring to write about a little trivial thing like Bachmann confusing one of America's movie icons with one of the most notorious serial killers in US history, while you went on taking little jabs forever with your Al Bundy/Ted Bundy comparisons.

ADDING... Bachmann should know that full names count. John Wayne is not the same as John Wayne Gacy, just as founding father John Adams is not the same as not founding father John Quincy Adams.

Christie's Helicopter Ride

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find another example of hypocrisy from a Governor of a state who is taking a hatchet to the budget and constantly crying poverty, yet uses taxpayer provided transportation for personal use.

Blunt-talking New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who has made ethics and government reform a centerpiece of his Administration, raised some eyebrows yesterday with his decision to take a state helicopter to his son's baseball game yesterday afternoon. Moreover, he left the game in the fifth inning, presumably to make it back to Princeton for his meeting with a group of Iowa activists who had flown to New Jersey to try to convince the governor to run for president.

If you're so worried about the budget, couldn't that helicopter flight, which I'm sure must have costs thousands, been avoided? He'll be asked about it, bark that it's his right, his family comes first and the media will drop it.

Sorry Scott Walker, Get Off The Government Teat

We all have to tighten our belt. We can't just keep doling out money we don't have. Unions are evil. Teachers and firefighters are to blame for all the deficits.

So to Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who turned down $810 million in federal money to build a high speed rail system from Madison to Milwaukee, but now is asking for $150 million to add trains to the existing Millwaukee-Chicago line, I say "fuck you."

Fuck you, you don't deserve a dime of federal money after demonizing the government's reckless spending and wasting of the taxpayers' money. Fuck you, you don't get a redistribution of the wealth from other states. No welfare for you, Scott Walker. Fuck off.

Maybe you could have gotten, oh I don't know, $33 million if you asked nicely.  $33 million is a nice number, kind of rolls off the tongue. And you know where you could have gotten the rest of the money? From the $117 million in corporate tax cuts you signed into law just a couple of weeks into office. Tell your corporate pals you'll have to rescind that tax cut, you jackass. Or maybe take a call from David Koch and ask him to float you. $117 million is pocket change to the Koch brothers.

Maybe you can raid the firefighters' and police officers' pensions since you failed to do it the first time thinking it would suit you politically. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, work it out and stop being so goddamned hypocritical.

Newt Was For It Before He Was Against It... - UPDATED

...and it was only a matter of days before Gingrich decided to switch policy positions for the sole purpose of criticizing President Obama on Libya... whatever the stance happened to be at the time, consistency be damned.

Gingrich on Van Susteren's show, March 7th:

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.

March 20th from Politico:

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.

March 23rd on The Today Show:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to, of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn't a serious standard, this is a public relations conversation. The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Does your neck hurt from the whiplash yet? Within a matter of 13 days, Gingrich went from "exercise a no-fly zone now" to "intervention makes no sense"; from "intervene because slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable" to "I would not have intervened."

In less than two weeks, Gingrich went from "The United States doesn't need anybody's permission" to "I would not have used American and European forces." Apparently Matt Lauer didn't challenge him on his previous statement supporting a no-fly zone led by the U.S. Good job, Matt. Do your homework next time.

And this lying, hypocritical rat bastard wants to run for president. This fickle fuck wants to be the leader of the free world. But what else can you expect from a jackass who used hard work and patriotism as an excuse to reason away philandering on two of his three wives? I'd watch my back if I were you, Callista.

(H/T Think Progress)

UPDATE (3:30pm): Pathetic backtracking begins.

This is such a sorry attempt to redefine his stance, but the timeline still doesn't add up. If Newt thought allies should have been used and not American forces, why did he initially say that we didn't need permission from the UN and didn't need NATO "who frankly wouldn't bring much to the fight"? If not NATO, what allies is he talking about? The French? The British?

And trying to blame is flip-flopping mind on Obama's statement of March 3rd doesn't make sense when Newt made his statement on March 7th. Of course, since every right wing nut has to oppose everything Obama says and does, we know the real reason he flip-flopped was because Obama actually did commit to a no-fly zone, something Newt was on board with... until Obama agreed. He can never be seen concurring with the President, so just say the opposite. No one will notice, right?

UPDATE II (3/24/11, 11:15am): Newt goes the Sarah Palin route. Enough with the lamestream gotcha media, I'll just post on Facebook!

Let's Compare!

POSTED BY JHW22

We have alarming levels of heart disease, diabetes, childhood obesity--and all of these maladies are on the rise. Now, I won't stand here and lecture--for very long--but health care reform on an individual basis is often just this simple: we could save a lot of money, and a lot of grief, by making smarter choices.

It starts by ending destructive habits, and beginning healthy habits in eating and exercise. In my case, it's hard to slack when you have the ever-present example of an Iron Dogger nearby. But many of us could use a little more time in our great outdoors--and when you live in the Great Land, there's no excuse.

Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future.

The emphasis is mine. The words are Sarah Palin's in her State of the State Address in 2009 -- two days after Michelle Obama became First Lady and 18 days before the First Lady launched her "Let's Move" initiative to accomplish the same things Sarah Palin laid out in her plans and speech. Sarah Palin quit her job about 5 1/2 months later, whereas Michelle Obama is still working her butt off to accomplish these goals.

What does the First Lady force on Americans through her "Let's Move" initiative?

Helpful tips and step-by-step strategies for families, schools and communities to help kids be more active, eat better and grow up healthy.

How does Sarah Palin interpret that?

"And I know I'm going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician's wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track."

Considering the "Let's Move" agenda sounds just like Palin's agenda as governor, the question is, why she isn't claiming the First Lady stole the plan from her, just as Palin claimed Obama stole the "Change" messaging from her?

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Miller

Remember Judith Miller? She was the New York Times reporter who drummed up the case for the Iraq War with front page news on weapons of mass destruction; stories that were cited by the Bush administration as evidence for the need to invade and remove Saddam Hussein from power. Where did she get those stories that wound up to be completely unfounded? "Official secrets" and "secret government reports." See how that works?

Anyway, it seems that Miller is now criticizing Julian Assange for his failure to verify the stories in the Wikileaks cable releases.

Miller said that Assange "didn't care at all about attempting to verify the information that he was putting out or determine whether or not it would hurt anyone."

Uh-huh. But stories about WMD that didn't exist didn't hurt anyone either, so that's cool, right?

The funny thing is that when she came under fire for her hack journalism, she responded, "'[M]y job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal.'"

So just to sum up, Miller, a journalist who worked for the NY Times for 28 years, who dropped the ball on WMD whether intentional or not, and was involved in protecting Scooter Libby during the Valerie Plame outing, criticized a wanted fugitive for not verifying stories in illegally obtained government cables for his data dump. ... Got it.

A Casual Observation

While I'm on the subject of Sarah Palin, you know, because there's nothing more important than that, there's one remark that struck me as odd during her narcissistic TLC reality show that practically no one has mentioned. At least I haven't heard anyone take note of it. And I only say "one thing" because I could not stomach actually watching the broadcast; my observation is just coming from video news clips because the "lamestream media" is obsessed with all things Palin.

There is a scene in the backyard of the Palin compound where Palin and the First Dude are chatting and commenting on the 14 foot fence that has been erected to block out a neighbor's view. That neighbor is supposedly a reporter who moved into the rental next door while he is in Alaska writing a book on Palin.

What struck me as the height of hypocrisy was Sarah suggesting to Todd that perhaps they should drill a hole in the fence so she can peer in and see what he's doing. She says this in front of cameras with absolutely no sense of irony. They're pissed off at the supposed spy next door, but now want to do the spying, all played out to delightful mischievous underscoring in front of 5 million viewers according to TLC. I wonder what the drop off in viewership will be next week?

Dedicated to Mr. Anonymous

Posted by JHW22

Since our loyal watcher, Mr. Anonymous, seems to enjoy the topic of hypocrisy, this post is for him.

I was watching Rachel Maddow interview Joe "Constitution Ninja" Miller regarding the very Constitution he so ardently defends and protects and seems to know better than anyone else (because he's a lawyer or because he's a Conservative -- I'm not sure which is more qualifying these days).

MADDOW: Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

MILLER: That’s up to the people. You’ve got a three-quarters vote, ratified, I’d vote for it.

MADDOW: You would vote for it?

MILLER: Yeah, I would. But it would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, I am no Constitutional scholar, attorney, or Conservative (who appear to be the only people who are allowed to comment on the Constitution these days) but I am pretty sure there is some inherent hypocrisy when Joe "Amendments are Bull Crap" Miller thinks stuff like this:

He called the idea of a living, changing Constitution “bullcrap,” and said he would support an amendment for term limits as well as an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures.

I am hoping Mr. Anonymous checks in and explains this contradiction in beliefs that it is okay to change the Constitution for some but not for others. You'd think that a staunch defender of the original writing of the Constitution, like Joe "Written in Cement" Miller would NOT want to alter it to limit the rights of some considering the original said something about securing "Blessings of Liberty" (but what's the significance of a preamble anyway, right?) Apparently, Joe "Except for You" Miller thinks it's okay to restrict the rights of teh gays via an amendment but I guess all the other amendments, written post-Founders, should be stripped or something?

I will be a catalyst to move those in Congress to make the tough, principled decisions needed to bring Washington back to the limited role anticipated by our Founders. We must act now.

I can totally see how banning marriage for 10%+ of the public is bringing back a limited role of government. It makes total sense -- in someone's alternate interpretation of the supposed document that is not living or open to anyone's interpretation but his.

I tend to agree with the man who wrote the Alaska State Constitution, Vic Fisher, when he said:

I would think a Yale Law School graduate would understand that a Constitution is a framework -- a foundation for the future.

In some ways, Joe "Keeping it Real" Miller thinks that the document is living and is adaptable depending on the mood of the country. In other ways he thinks it's meant to be stuck in the day when not everyone had a say in how that document could be adapted. Therein lies the hypocrisy. I do hope Mr. Anonymous will shed some light on this issue. I hope he uses original thought, however. I'd hate to read the same talking points I could find by a simple Google search.

Lazy Journalism

You know, I don't envy journalists. If you do your job properly, it can be a difficult task between fact checking and research, multiple sources and looking for the scoop. So imagine my surprise when I saw this from the LA Times:
Mississippi officials blast BP, U.S. government as oil hits coast -
Gov. Haley Barbour condemns a lack of resources; Rep. Gene Taylor is 'dumbfounded' by 'wasted effort, wasted money and stupidity.'

Yes, Heehaw reject Haley Barbour is pointing fingers at the federal government for the lack of response and failure to capture the oil offshore before hitting Mississippi's shores. Rep. Gene Taylor, whom I've written about before regarding the BP disaster, was equally outraged:

At a news conference Monday, Barbour said that "the plan we agreed to with the unified command and BP wasn't being given the resources to be totally effective." As a result, he said, "there continues to be more oil in the [Mississippi] Sound than we have the capacity to deal with, unless we get lucky."

Speaking at the same event, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), whose district lies on the coast, said he flew over the spill Saturday and "was dumbfounded by the amount of wasted effort, wasted money and stupidity that I saw."

I scanned the rest of the article for mention of Barbour's dismissal of the oil spill, tar balls and it's non-toxicity. I looked for quotes from Gene Taylor saying the oil would evaporate within a week. But I saw nothing. The two actors were being reported on, were shaking their fists at the evil government, but there was no perspective. There was no ironic twist being that said actors shrugged their shoulders two months ago, with Barbour especially whining about the media making such a big deal about the spill it would hurt his state's tourism.

So I e-mailed Molly Hennessy-Fiske and Richard Fausset, the authors of the article.

Subject: Re: Mississippi officials blast BP, U.S. government as oil hits coast

From: [Broadway Carl]

Date: June 29, 2010 10:31:39 AM EDT

To: richard.fausset@latimes.com, molly.hennessy-fiske@latimes.com

Dear Mrs. Hennessy-Fiske and Mr. Fausset,

Perhaps a little perspective on Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Rep. Gene Taylor would have behooved your article of June 29th, "Mississippi officials blast BP, U.S. government as oil hits coast," such as the fact that for weeks, Barbour has been downplaying the oil spill in an attempt to get tourists to go to the beaches, or that he's had 6,000 National Guard troops at his disposal to prepare for the oncoming oil slick and has only deployed 58. Or that's he's called the oil not unlike a food mousse and not poisonous. Now he's singing a different tune that the oil has reached his shores.

Or Rep. Gene Taylor, who said the oil would evaporate within a week during the first few days of the disaster, also calling it chocolate mousse in consistency.

For these men to dismiss this catastrophe weeks ago when it first began and now turn their flippancy to blaming and finger pointing is absolutely disgusting and should be called out.

[Broadway Carl]

Mr. Fausset was kind enough to respond:

From: Fausset, Richard 

Subject: RE: Mississippi officials blast BP, U.S. government as oil hits coast

Date: June 29, 2010 4:54:12 PM EDT

To: [Broadway Carl]

Mr. [Broadway Carl]:

Hi there. I agree that I should have mentioned Barber's earlier downplaying of the spill. My bad.

Richard Fausset

LA Times Atlanta bureau

That's it. No update on the web article. Sigh. At least he answered his e-mail.

I Lost My Religion Years Ago

This is why.