Hypocrisy Follows the “Expanding Universe Model”

I like to read articles about astronomy and physics, and many of the articles I’ve read try to answer the question of whether the universe is expanding, and if so, if that expansion is accelerating. Well, based on the evidence I’ve seen in the last five years, I think that in the Hypocritical Universe the answer to that question is an unqualified yes. Each week I am amazed at how rapidly the universe of hypocrisy has expanded.

This item is not only the hypocrisy of the week; it may be the hypocrisy of the year. Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, AKA the Hammer or the Exterminator, took up the fight two weeks ago to have Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted. Even though a dozen judges have consistently ruled that the husband’s decision to cease life-prolonging treatment was within his rights as her guardian, Delay and his colleagues in Congress decided to intervene to “save Terry.” Delay said “what God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo”…. apparently to battle against death-loving liberals who kill babies and pull the plug on anyone with anything as debilitating as a cold.

Over the weekend, one of the blogs I frequent linked to an LA Times story that revealed Delay himself faced a similar family tragedy several years ago. This story has since made its way into the other major dailies and onto the Internets. Bill Saletan discusses it today in Slate.

No, you are not hallucinating – Saletan talks about how Delay’s family decided against prolonging his own father‘s life when he slipped into a persistent vegetative state. So what happened in the intervening 16 years to not only change Delay’s viewpoint on the issue of a family’s decision to cease life-prolonging medical procedures, but also to use the power of the US Congress to intervene in a state matter and attempt to overrule state courts?

Is it that Delay found Jesus and had a change of heart about such things?

Is it as Saletan argues that Delay sees Terry Schiavo differently than he saw his father because he’s looking at her from a politician’s standpoint while he looked on his father as a son would? Quoting Saletan:

Why the difference between then and now? Maybe because DeLay saw his father as a human being. He speaks of Schiavo as something more and less….

This is what happens when you approach a tragedy as a politician rather than as a family member. You see quality of life as a slippery-slope abstraction, not as a reality affecting someone you love. You find it easy to impose a standard of documentation that would have forced your family to break the law. You second-guess a spouse in a way you would never second-guess your mother. You challenge people's competence and impugn their character. You perceive the afflicted person more as God's tool than as God's child.

A tool Saletan says! So, is it that he found an issue he thought he could work to great political advantage (D’oh!), enabling him to deflect media attention from his myriad of ethical and legal problems while at the same time beating up on those death-loving, baby-killing, godless Democrats?

I look at Delay’s antics over his career and what I see is a corrupt politician who cares nothing for the well-being and dignity of people like Terry Schiavo. His only real passion is for power and dominance over others. If this issue is so important to him morally, then wouldn’t he have been discussing this case for a period longer than the last two weeks? (Can anyone find a mention of it by Delay previous to March 2005? I can’t.)

Saletan covers for Delay by suggesting that because he’s looking at Schiavo as a politician and not as a family member he loses touch with the human tragedy of her and her family’s predicament. That justification doesn’t really cut it for me – it assumes that Delay is simply misguided and that he really has good intentions. Saletan seems to suggest that Delay’s religious beliefs motivate his perception of Schiavo as a tool for furthering the cause of the right-wing Christian-fundamentalists – causes that in their minds (and according to Saletan, also in Delay’s mind) are just and worthy. I would argue that Delay’s moral bankruptcy and totally corrupt thirst for power motivates his perception that the religious right is a tool he can use to maintain his grip on power and that this particular case is just one more string he can tug to manipulate his puppets in this voting bloc.

Tom Delay is a man whose hypocrisy knows no bounds – I sincerely believe that he would use any cause, any ideal, or anyone’s misfortune to feed his own appetite for power. Sadly, he isn’t the only one – there is plenty of competition for the power that exists in this country. If there wasn’t, Delay wouldn’t be fighting so hard to hold it for himself. As long as citizens allow vast amounts of influence and power to consolidate in so few people, Delay and those like him will continue to thirst for possession of it and attempt to destroy those standing in their way.

This consolidation of power is dangerous and runs counter to basic tenets of American democracy. Our founding fathers warned us many, many times against the danger of excessive power – George Washington warned us in the most symbolic ways by refusing kingship and leaving the Presidency voluntarily. Thomas Jefferson’s warnings came through his many elegant writings. My friend pinkgator is right, as usual – Jefferson did have beautiful penmanship:

But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. -April 22, 1820

We have ignored their warnings, believing in our arrogance that we could handle this power responsibly and justly. With Tom Delay, George Bush, and their corporate masters, we are now witnessing what can be unleashed when power is entrusted to lesser men.

Thanking my Lazy Stars

My good friend pinkgator over at Lazy Stars deserves many thanks from the Little Hippocrat for linking to my blog.

For anyone checking out the blog, I have a question to ponder regarding the Terry Schiavo case.

Why is it that if you are conservative and believe that the Congress shouldn’t get involved in the Schiavo case it means you are a libertarian, but if you are a liberal/progressive and believe Congress should not get involved it means you are a very bad person?

Why They're Really Doing It

Being a native Floridian, I’ve known about the Schiavo case for a long time. It’s a sad tale, and the spectacle being made of it by politicians and activists is nauseating. No longer is it a tragic private matter for an unfortunate Florida family, this case has become the rallying cry for a small group of fundamentalist zealots bent on remaking the world in an image pleasing to them. Once the Delay Republicans in Congress took up the case, I realized it had become a proxy fight for the right-to-life crowd, otherwise known as anti-abortion crusaders. Here Kos provides some evidence:

DeLay thinks Schiavo gives him a reprieve from his ethics woes. The anti-abortion movement, on the other hand, thinks this gives their cause a boost.

Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush's Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion.

“The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now," said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

"This case has generated a kind of inspirational activism. It is giving revival and renewal to millions of people who feel strongly about the culture of life and the protection of life," he said.

Schiavo is a prop for their real agenda.

Not surprisingly, a number of less extremist conservatives recognize the inherent danger posed by a Congressional leadership that decides to override the rule of law. Kos again:

Conservative bloggers aren't standing pat on the Schiavo case, and some are even more passionately against Frist's and DeLay's actions than we are. John Cole is one of them.

It's important to remember that the latest ABC News poll (PDF) on the issue clocked conservative support for removing the feeding tube at 54-40. That's a solid majority, among conservatives. Heck, even among evangelicals, there is narrow support for removing the feeding tubes, 44-40.

What we have here is a Republican Party held captive by a narrow, fringe, extremist part of its base. Your average Republican is looking in horror at the current congressional spectacle. The GOP majority has neatly segued itself into the party of Big Intrusive Government.

Chris Bowers at MyDD has uncovered the financial connections between the big-money operatives of the GOP and conservative movement and the parents of Schiavo, who are campaigning to keep her alive.

Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.

Most of the public favors the court rulings, which basically says that Schiavo’s husband is her guardian and his (private) decision that she would not want to go on living is what everyone should respect. So why are politicians jumping on this as a great issue? Because the big money behind the GOP wants them to. As Kos says, this is a small, extremist faction of the GOP. And it’s obvious that they do not care about public opinion, the rule of law, or the privacy of individuals. They will do anything to exercise their power.

And not only are the politicians in their pockets, but so too are the big media corporations. If you’ve seen the network coverage of this circus (or almost anything else recently), you know what I mean.

Unfortunately for those of us in the reality-based community, the country’s political alliances are so fractured, and our public discourse so awful, that no real discussion of the long term consequences of these events can take place. Thus, no coherent argument will form to educate the public consciousness about how this latest action by the Congress and President has eroded the rule of law, weakened our civil liberties, or the further jeopardized our ability to control our own government.

So tomorrow, and each day hence forth, will bring another over-reaching power-grabbing action by a government that has run amok. And each day it will continue until the very foundation of the country crumbles beneath the rubble of the Republican Revolution.

Last minute Friday Cat Blogging 

G-Coefficient Update

I’ve neglected to post any updates on fantasy baseball for a couple of weeks. The main reason for this dereliction is the discovery of an error in my player projections! I’ve recently updated the stats and will soon post the corrected files. Here is the schedule for posts of the Top 20 players at each position (top 40 for OF and SP):

First Base: Tues. March 15
Second Base: Wed. March 16
Third Base: Thurs. March 17
Shortstop: Mon. March 21
Outfield: Tues. March 22
Catchers: Wed. March 23
Starting Pitchers: Mon. March 28
Closers: Tues. March 29
Top 40 hitters: Wed. March 30
Top 40 pitchers: Thurs. March 31


UPDATE: I'm having a few problems getting files squared away, so it will be a day or two before I can start posting updates. I'll try to catch things up so I can stay on schedule. -LH

That’s right, it really is BS

From the “Too Good to be True” Files:

To the veteran watchers of the federal government, it is probably no surprise that there is a unit in the State Department with the acronym “OBS.” For the Bush Administration, though, there is not an agency of government better suited to carry out its core mission. The Center for American Progress has more:

OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."

This past weekend, the New York Times published a rather startling expose of just how pervasive the Bush Administration’s use of covert propaganda really is.

Yes, for once, this name actually does tell you what the organization does.

Friday Cat Blogging from the laundry basket

He doesn't seem to mind the smelly socks.

Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award: St. Alan

This week’s winner of the Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award is the saintly Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. Yes, Mr. Andrea Mitchell displayed an unusual penchant for hypocrisy with his testimony before the Congressional Committee on the Budget last week.

The important part of his testimony occurs here:

… our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken. (Emphasis Added)

Now, I may be hallucinating, but I do recall Mr. Greenspan advocating tax cuts in 2001 in order to reduce the size of the surplus that was being generated at that time (in spite of the fact that it would be several more years before the total federal debt could actually be retired). Let’s see, I’m sure he testified to Congress about this…oh yeah – here it is:

…we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures.

… it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions…

Now I realize this statement seems a bit convoluted, as I’m sure St. Alan intended. To be clear, though, he is advocating a reduction in taxes in order to avoid paying off the government’s debt too quickly.

At the time, St. Alan’s testimony was a boon to the illegitimate president who came storming in on a “mandate” of conservatism and fiscal irresponsibility. Bush’s subsequent tax cuts blew a hole in the budget the size of Texas. Well, I guess his saintliness is no longer kept up at night with nightmares of too-rapidly paid down deficits!

So now we need “major deficit-reducing actions” in order to improve our “budget position.” OK, I got a suggestion – FIRE GREENSPAN. Here’s the logic, if we hadn’t put in place the huge tax cuts he so happily endorsed in 2001, the deficit in recent years would be significantly reduced! So if we fire him now, we at least have a chance to stem the bleeding in the future.

Oh, why the hypocrisy award you ask? Well, I’ll let Senator Reid explain here and Ron Brownstein of the LA Times explain here.

Let’s de-canonize St. Alan of Hypocrisy!

Abomination

Eighteen Senate Democrats joined the 55 Republicans to pass the heinous bankruptcy reform bill. For the record, here's the 18 turncoats:

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.

Reid's vote is extremely disappointing, given his ability to rally the Democrats into a strong opposition on both Social Security privatization and judicial nominations. He should have shown that leadership on this issue - one the Democrats could have campaigned on in 2006.

A clear pattern of Republican Robber Baron behavior has emerged with several bills that essentially steal money from the wallets of millions of middle and working class people and gather this cash into large wads to stuff into the pockets of giant corporations. If the Democrats could have unified to fight against all of these bills, they could have waged an effective legislative battle against the GOP while building a compelling case indicting the GOP for openly waging war on the middle and working class.

Building the idea in the minds of voters that Democrats stand for protecting middle and working class families from predatory credit card companies (bankruptcy bill), reckless pharmaceutical industries (prescription drug bill, FDA oversight), and greedy Wall Street brokers (Social Security privatization) would be an effective way to reach many voting blocs that are not traditionally Democrat. Many conservatives are deeply disturbed by the bankruptcy bill, and some traditional conservatives could be reached by making this issue a centerpiece of a political campaign.

Do Democrats lose to Republicans because people see the GOP as the more moral party, or do GOP candidates win because Democratic candidates fail to make a compelling moral argument for the validity of their beliefs? This is an ongoing debate within the Democratic party right now, but regardless of the correct answer, I think it is clear by the actions of the Administration and the Republicans in Congress that they are neither very moral nor are their moral arguments very valid. Let's quit debating which strategy is correct and attack the GOP on both fronts- they are growing increasingly weak on both.

Bankruptcy Bill Demonstrates the Problem with Current American Politics

Digby really encapsulates all that is wrong with the American political system at this point in time in this post about the bankruptcy bill:

• An administration beholding to large and especially greedy corporations;



• An administration that continuously dissembles and claims up is down, misleading the public as it enacts horrible policy after horrible policy;



• A corrupt congress that is out of control and incapable of standing up to big money;



• An opposition party that is so compromised by the corruption of the current system that it is next to impossible for all of its members to stand united against abominable bills;



• An opposition party that enables the tyranny of the majority party by allowing its individual members to cooperate with and provide cover for majority malfeasance; and



• A governing system that has no forethought to the consequences of the actions of that government on the everyday lives of its citizens.

The system is irreparably broken and only a near-total takedown (as in the electoral defeat of at least half or maybe two-thirds of incumbents in the next two election cycles) can provide any hope of getting a government in place that actually protects its citizens.

'Bankruptcy Reform' Equals 'Screw the Middle Class'

Today, the US Senate will pass a “bankruptcy reform” bill - Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill is anything but reform. It does nothing to 'protect' consumers. The bill essentially gives the credit card industry a green light to swindle American consumers, gives creditors greater opportunity to profit from personal family crises while hanging those families out to dry, and gives protections to anti-abortion zealots who are held civilly responsible for the damage they inflict in the course of crusading against abortion.

Professor Elizabeth Warren spelled out the worst of the bill at Talking Points Memo:

• Make debtors pay more to creditors, both in bankruptcy and after bankruptcy, so that a bankruptcy filing will leave a family with more credit card debt, higher car loans, more owed to their banks and to payday lenders.

• Make it more expensive to file for bankruptcy by driving up lawyers’ fees with new paperwork, new affidavits, and new liability for lawyers, so that the people in the most trouble can’t afford to file.

• Make more hurdles and traps, with deadlines that a judge cannot waive even if someone has a heart attack or an ex-husband who won’t give up a copy of the tax returns, so that more people will get pushed out of bankruptcy with no discharge.

• Make it harder to repay debts in Chapter 13 by increasing the payments necessary to confirm in a repayment plan, so that more people will be pushed out of bankruptcy without ever getting a discharge of debt.

These are the main provisions, but there are even more hideous components that really stick it to the average Joe while there is nothing to reign in the real crooks – the Ken Lays of the world.

Here’s some of the things the bill allows:

• No cap on interest that credit card companies can charge (an amendment to cap rates at 30% was defeated),


• No protection for families who experience economic distress as a result of caring for ill family members,


• No protection for families and individuals whose debt is caused by medical emergencies,


• The bill would force elderly homeowners to lose their home when they declare bankruptcy,


• Allows really rich people to place their assets in “protected trusts” that cannot be touched by creditors – call this one the Ken Lay special,


• Gives no protection to employees’ earnings, pensions, or retirement benefits when their employer declares bankruptcy,


• Limits the amount of closure required by credit card companies regarding interest, fees, and other “hidden” requirements of credit card agreements.

The Democrats could have stopped this bill if they had united in the way they have on Social Security – 41 votes (there are 44 D Senators) would have prevented this bill from coming to a vote. But these Democrats voted to bring the bill up:

Biden-DE
Byrd-WV
Carper-DE
Conrad-ND
Johnson-SD
Kohl-WI
Landrieu-LA
Lieberman-CT
Lincoln-AR
Nelson-FL
Nelson-NE
Pryor-AR
Salazar-CO
Stabenow-MI

Furthermore, Senators Biden, Nelson of Nebraska, Carper, Landrieu and Salazar have consistently voted against Democratic amendments to insert some protections for the elderly, military, and those caught in financial crisis by health care costs. Oh, and every single Republican looks to be on board for this bill – as if you had to wonder.

Let’s see how many vote for this rotten bill’s passage. Update to come later.

New Blog - Lazy Stars

A good friend of mine has started her own blog, and it can be found here.

She posted an excellent slideshow of the Hubble Space Telescope here.