Is there some course offered at exclusive country clubs about how, if you are wealthy, you don't have to pay all of your taxes? I mean Geithner, Daschle, Sebelius! So, you want to tackle the details that will lead to the long overdue and total transformation of our financial regulatory system, or even the more difficult and detailed analysis required to reform health care, but you either cannot master the IRS tax code as it pertains to personal income tax or even find an accountant who can? I realize that a post like this is a little out of skew and dramatically over-simplifies things, but come on!
How 'bout that Obama vetting team? I guess finding people who are are not tax cheats is pretty hard, which explains why all but one (the secretary) of the 23 Treasury positions that require Senate confirmation are filled. The president has only nominated two (besides the Secretary) to fill these positions. Among the many priorities we should have, perhaps simplifying the tax code should be added in somewhere.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Culture, politics, and society
The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan observed that for conservatives it is axiomatic "that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society." As one might suspect, it is an atomic truth of liberalism that politics is more fundamental and important to society than culture. The worst outcome, that which began in the late 1960s, is the politicization of culture; culture co-opted in the service of politics. I think this distinction helps because it shows how deeply-rooted liberalism is in the U.S. and why there is a persistent attempt to banish religion from the public square. Questions about what such a conservative view would mean for our initial decision to invade Iraq in the first place aside, how many times have we heard that in Iraq what we need is a political, not a military, solution? Have you ever heard that what we need is cultural solution? No! Why? Because religion, which is the foundation of culture, is seen as the obstacle to unifying and sustaining society. Nonetheless, we must ask, despite being the only predominantly Arab country with a Shi'a majority, how many Iraqis, especially leaders, actually listen to the Grand Ayatollah Sistani? Let me answer that one too- Not many!
Too often the trouble with religion is that religious leaders and people become liberal in the sense that they begin to seek salvation through politics. The Holy Father understands the priority of culture and how human culture, especially high culture, is not really possible without religion. He also sees the necessary link between Christianity and the advancement of western culture. Stated simply, the loss of faith leads to the coarsening and ultimate demise of culture. Msgr. Giussani also understood this very deeply and sought to communicate this in everything he taught. It is important that those of us who share Giussani's charism listen and learn, both from Giussani and the Holy Father, as well to and from Fr. Carrón.
Too often the trouble with religion is that religious leaders and people become liberal in the sense that they begin to seek salvation through politics. The Holy Father understands the priority of culture and how human culture, especially high culture, is not really possible without religion. He also sees the necessary link between Christianity and the advancement of western culture. Stated simply, the loss of faith leads to the coarsening and ultimate demise of culture. Msgr. Giussani also understood this very deeply and sought to communicate this in everything he taught. It is important that those of us who share Giussani's charism listen and learn, both from Giussani and the Holy Father, as well to and from Fr. Carrón.
Factoring in Bill O'Reilly
I am not a big fan of the cable news shout fests, like The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann's program. Once in a while, via the constant news feed at work, when I am there in the early evening, I'll catch a few minutes of one of these programs. However, I do think that these folks perform a service, the kind of service Jon Stewart was urging Jim Cramer to perform in his now famous Daily Show interview. This service consists of asking the tough questions that we all want to ask and pressing interviewees hard for answers, not letting them off the hook in the easy manner in which they are let off on, say, ABC's This Week, and other more convivial shows.
I have to admit that at least Bill O'Reilly has a sense of humor about himself and appears on The Colbert Report, on which he is known as Papa Bear, and has also appeared on the Daily Show. Even though he and Jon Stewart could not have a more different political frame of reference, I think Stewart respects O'Reilly, at least as much as he respects anyone, though not to the point of not criticizing him, as when he lambasted O'Reilly's two-faced take on women running for high political office, depending on whether he was talking about Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin.
For some odd reason, I linked to an interview with O'Reilly off the Yahoo home page this morning because I really had to find out who the actor was that O'Reilly would not even go see his movies- Sean Penn. I actually found the interview interesting and O'Reilly's answers to be refreshingly straightforward and candid. He has a lot of very complimentary things to say about a lot people. It was nice to read about this side of a guy whose on-air persona is gruff and often angry. On his Hollywood A-List? Clint Eastwood. His favorite Eastwood film? Unforgiven. I can't fault him for taste on that!
The part of the interview I liked the most and to which I found myself saying Yeah! to was this:
I have to admit that at least Bill O'Reilly has a sense of humor about himself and appears on The Colbert Report, on which he is known as Papa Bear, and has also appeared on the Daily Show. Even though he and Jon Stewart could not have a more different political frame of reference, I think Stewart respects O'Reilly, at least as much as he respects anyone, though not to the point of not criticizing him, as when he lambasted O'Reilly's two-faced take on women running for high political office, depending on whether he was talking about Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin.
For some odd reason, I linked to an interview with O'Reilly off the Yahoo home page this morning because I really had to find out who the actor was that O'Reilly would not even go see his movies- Sean Penn. I actually found the interview interesting and O'Reilly's answers to be refreshingly straightforward and candid. He has a lot of very complimentary things to say about a lot people. It was nice to read about this side of a guy whose on-air persona is gruff and often angry. On his Hollywood A-List? Clint Eastwood. His favorite Eastwood film? Unforgiven. I can't fault him for taste on that!
The part of the interview I liked the most and to which I found myself saying Yeah! to was this:
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHY ARE ACTORS SUCH FREQUENT TARGETS OF "THE FACTOR"?After all, how many drive-by attacks has the Holy Father endured both with regard to his largely misunderstand and misinterpreted lifting of the SSPX excommunications and his all too accurate statement that condoms are not the answer to HIV/AIDs in Africa?
O'Reilly: My job is to watch the powerful. A performer has a forum that other people do not, and all we ask is that they be fair. If they believe something and use their TV show, movie or concert to spout off about it, that's fine. But if we have some questions about their beliefs, I think they should answer them -- and not be drive-by people.
THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHO ARE THESE DRIVE-BY PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF?
O'Reilly: I take it case by case. We took on George Clooney over the 9/11 charities, and we were absolutely right, but Clooney does a good job with Darfur. We took on Bruce Springsteen for things he has done at concerts because we want to know what his frame of reference is. These are powerful people, and we're not going to give them a free ride. If there was somebody screaming right-wing stuff, we'd do the same thing. But there is no one like that because if they do that in Hollywood, they're not going to work, which is an interesting story in and of itself.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The one year anniversary of the YFZ raid
Looking back at yesterday's post on my blog, today marks the one year anniversary of the raid on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas. You know what is really weird? I have twice spent the better part of a year in San Angelo, Texas!
"In sermons and school lessons," writes Brooke Adams in today's SL Trib, "the FLDS have kept alive eight decades of efforts to wipe out their polygamous lifestyle -- most notably, the 1953 raid on Short Creek, their traditional home base at the Utah-Arizona border. Authorities kept 263 women and children in state custody for two years. The raid led the sect to close ranks -- a decision that contributed to what happened in Texas 55 years later." She then goes on to quote Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose statement is as notable for what he does not say as for what he does: "One good thing is it sent a message to [sect leader] Warren Jeffs, or anyone of his ilk, that they can't go somewhere else to perform underage marriages, even though they went to extraordinary lengths to have it be private on the ranch." Note that he is not so concerned about polygamy per se, which is forbidden by the Utah State Constitution, but only with underage shenanigans. Now, if one has to prioritize, sparing young girls the tribulation of being forced to be a plural wife at an age younger than the law permits anyone to enter into a marriage is a higher priority. Do not for one minute think that he has no sympathy for polygamists. After all, it is Shurtleff who said,
FLDS Temple at the YFZ Ranch
"Polygamy is illegal in Utah and forbidden by the Arizona constitution. However, law enforcement agencies in both states have decided to focus on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud. The Utah Attorney General's Office and the Arizona Attorney General's Office also worked together [with polygamy advocates] to produce 'The Primer -- Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities.' This manual provides basic information about various communities that will assist human services professionals, law enforcement officers and others in helping victims from these communities. The Primer will be updated regularly to reflect modifications in the law and changes in each organization's beliefs and practices . . ."
I am not entirely unsympathetic with such an approach to law enforcement, but the idea that these communities can in any wise be trusted to police themselves and cooperate honestly with authorities, given their histories, strikes me as being more than a tad too optimistic.
Mike Leavitt, who served in the Bush Administration as EPA Administrator and then as Secretary of Health and Human Services, while serving as governor of Utah, once called for the repeal of state laws against polygamy and for an end to laws against polygamy being enforced, not only in Utah, but other states, too, because he thought the practice fell under the protection of the first amendment, despite the fact that the constitution of his state, which he took an oath defend, has to say on the matter. The Utah constitution makes polygamy a third-degree felony, although enforcement of laws banning it have not been high on the law enforcement or legal agenda since the 1953 raid. Of course, he corrected himself a few days later by saying that it is difficult to impossible to enforce laws against it because of the manner in which it is practiced. This last statement is no doubt true, but do not be fooled into thinking that he, Shurtleff, and others state leaders have problems in principle with the practice of polygamy. Why? Doctrine & Covenants Section 132, which states:
"In sermons and school lessons," writes Brooke Adams in today's SL Trib, "the FLDS have kept alive eight decades of efforts to wipe out their polygamous lifestyle -- most notably, the 1953 raid on Short Creek, their traditional home base at the Utah-Arizona border. Authorities kept 263 women and children in state custody for two years. The raid led the sect to close ranks -- a decision that contributed to what happened in Texas 55 years later." She then goes on to quote Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, whose statement is as notable for what he does not say as for what he does: "One good thing is it sent a message to [sect leader] Warren Jeffs, or anyone of his ilk, that they can't go somewhere else to perform underage marriages, even though they went to extraordinary lengths to have it be private on the ranch." Note that he is not so concerned about polygamy per se, which is forbidden by the Utah State Constitution, but only with underage shenanigans. Now, if one has to prioritize, sparing young girls the tribulation of being forced to be a plural wife at an age younger than the law permits anyone to enter into a marriage is a higher priority. Do not for one minute think that he has no sympathy for polygamists. After all, it is Shurtleff who said,
FLDS Temple at the YFZ Ranch
"Polygamy is illegal in Utah and forbidden by the Arizona constitution. However, law enforcement agencies in both states have decided to focus on crimes within polygamous communities that involve child abuse, domestic violence and fraud. The Utah Attorney General's Office and the Arizona Attorney General's Office also worked together [with polygamy advocates] to produce 'The Primer -- Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities.' This manual provides basic information about various communities that will assist human services professionals, law enforcement officers and others in helping victims from these communities. The Primer will be updated regularly to reflect modifications in the law and changes in each organization's beliefs and practices . . ."I am not entirely unsympathetic with such an approach to law enforcement, but the idea that these communities can in any wise be trusted to police themselves and cooperate honestly with authorities, given their histories, strikes me as being more than a tad too optimistic.
Mike Leavitt, who served in the Bush Administration as EPA Administrator and then as Secretary of Health and Human Services, while serving as governor of Utah, once called for the repeal of state laws against polygamy and for an end to laws against polygamy being enforced, not only in Utah, but other states, too, because he thought the practice fell under the protection of the first amendment, despite the fact that the constitution of his state, which he took an oath defend, has to say on the matter. The Utah constitution makes polygamy a third-degree felony, although enforcement of laws banning it have not been high on the law enforcement or legal agenda since the 1953 raid. Of course, he corrected himself a few days later by saying that it is difficult to impossible to enforce laws against it because of the manner in which it is practiced. This last statement is no doubt true, but do not be fooled into thinking that he, Shurtleff, and others state leaders have problems in principle with the practice of polygamy. Why? Doctrine & Covenants Section 132, which states:
"And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. "The LDS believe that these are words of the Lord spoken directly to the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. Hence, for the LDS faithful, these words remain divine revelation, an unambiguous expression of God's will.
And on it goes...
IN the interests of fairness, I offer Jake DeSantis' letter of resignation to AIG, which the NY Times published as an Op-ed piece. Dear A.I.G., I Quit!, which reads in part:
"After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself.
"I take this action after 11 years of dedicated, honorable service to A.I.G. I can no longer effectively perform my duties in this dysfunctional environment, nor am I being paid to do so. Like you, I was asked to work for an annual salary of $1, and I agreed out of a sense of duty to the company and to the public officials who have come to its aid. Having now been let down by both, I can no longer justify spending 10, 12, 14 hours a day away from my family for the benefit of those who have let me down"
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The on-going immorality
You've presided over the biggest corporate failure in history and help oversee a company that is a financial blackhole so large that $170 billion of tax payer money has not yet been able to fill it. Yet, unlike Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns, but like Hank Paulson's own beloved Goldman Sachs and Citibank, you have been deemed to be too big to fail. So, what do you deserve? Your super-sized welfare payment, of course! That is why A.I.G., despite being on federally funded life-support, is doling out $165 million to their clueless, slack-jawed executives who did their part to guarantee the demise of our financial system.
I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!
While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"
I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!
While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"
Thursday, March 5, 2009
A shrewd observation
Yesterday I was reading an address by philosopher Peter Van Inwagen entitled Quam Dilecta. It is a very good and accessible description of faith and reason and how they work together in the life of this prominent philosopher. In the course of the biographical portion of his address, he discusses his belonging to the Episcopal Church and how his belonging illustrates "Robert Conquest's Second Law: Every organization appears to be headed by secret agents of its opponents."
Of course, my purpose for citing this is that it is a universal law, not limited to Episcopalians.
Of course, my purpose for citing this is that it is a universal law, not limited to Episcopalians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)