Going To The Chapel, Take Two

For the love of criminy why should I care about this?

He may well have confirmed your story, but it doesn’t mean you’re not a bit dim. Just sayin’.
.

Aren’t you late for a WaPo pay-to-delay health care salon or something?

Amy Sullivan:
.
I know I’m a bit dim…
.
Yes.

NOOOOOOOOOOO! Not again…..

“I know I’m a bit dim”
.
Finally! You get it!

But hey on a day when the Swamp also dedicated two posts to Sanford’s loins and yet another on the “dishy” Mac-Palin fallout, I can almost forgive your admitted dimness. Perhaps your self-awareness will prove contagious, though the above indicates it doesn’t change much about your work.

In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics. Yes, she has a track record for throwing athiests, agnostics, and otherwise tolerant religious Democrats under the bus. But this is her beat.
.
If you don’t care about this dynamic (God and politics) then I am not sure it is entirely necessary to post your disapproval. I’m not talking about when Amy posts something ridiculous. I’m talking a about complaining about any religious post.

Sq1: But it’s “necessary” to spend this much time engaging Spob!?
~
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/02/a-senate-committees-health-reform-bill/?apage=2#comment-77495

Sq1
~
The role of religion in politics is a worthy enough arena to post on. However, where the President decides to worship is far removed from that sphere. And to post on this topic twice?

In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics.
.
This blog was just fine with out a reporter who writes about religion and politics. I been reading this blog before Amy started posting here. No one asked my opinion if it was a good idea for her to post here. If they had, I would have said no. But since no one asked my opinion in the first instance I will feel free to express it now.
.
It should not matter what religion the Obama’s practice or if they practice one at all. It has no weight on my life or any other American’s life. His policies do. I don’t sleep better or have more pep in my step because the Obamas do or don’t go to church. So to me these type of posts push down other worth talking about posts. That’s my opinion.

” .. We may choose, rather than to join just one church, to rotate and attend a number of different churches. ”

Given that BHO is a president to all Americans, and that he does not wish to be localized, then he does not mind being seen praying to that god in a Catholic church, right? A buddhist temple? A Hindu temple? A muslim mosque? A voodoo shrine?

I hate to tell Obama this, but his “comings and goings” at Camp David inconvenience thousands of people a year who visit the Catoctin Mountain park where it is located. Our church has held annual retreats in the closest public campground to Camp David for 30 years, and since 9/11/01 the “security perimeter” around Camp David has been enlarged when the POTUS is there (or the VPOTUS), blocking access to several family-friendly campus trails and forcing long detours to reach the major group sites.
.
Like this coming weekend:
.
http://www.nps.gov/cato/planyourvisit/closure-map.htm

One year we hade to stay put at our site for three hours (no one in or out) while W took a bike ride.
.
We do have a worship service on Sunday, maybe he’ll show up if we invite him. It can’t be any more disruptive than what we have experienced the last 8 years. But I’m not sure he can risk being seen with Unitarian Universalists.

On the other hand, we did enjoy filming this last October, when Dick Cheney was camping next door:
.

.
In fairness to Amy, she writes about religion and politics…this is her beat.
.
Where the Obamas choose to go to church is about religion or politics?. Why is this important? What does it say about religion or politics?
.
If you don’t care about this dynamic (God and politics) then I am not sure it is entirely necessary to post your disapproval.
.
You do realize that you are expressing disapproval about others’ expression of disapproval, right?

Actually, the ONLY reason I’m interested in POTUS going to church is out of concern for his security. Look what happened to Dr. Tiller in church. Church is where the crazy people go (except you of course Joyo!) I’d rather have POTUS just ask a chaplain to do a White House call.

square1 –

It’s consumer feedback. If we don’t tell the Swamp People straight out about the content and quality of their posts there’s not much likelihood of improvement. See also, for comparison, the effusive (and richly deserved) praise for KT’s latest on health care?

This blog was just fine with out a reporter who writes about religion and politics.
.
And would, frankly, be better off without somebody on the staff masquerading as one.
.
Just sayin’.

Gunny, I basically agree with you. This blog is infinitely better without a dedicated religion and politics correspondent.
.
I’ve also, at various times, mocked, criticized, and ignored Sullivan’s posts. So, I don’t come here to praise her or her beat, by any stretch. If you want to email the editors and ask them to remove her from Swampland, you have my full support.
.
I guess I just don’t see the point in a bunch of responses to every Sullivan post that are essentially “Why are you posting about this?” when the answer obviously is “Sullivan covers religion and politics”.
.
Some of the criticism is over the top. Personally, I could die a happy man if I never read another word about Obama’s religious views or what churches he attends. But I think it is silly to suggest that the question of what (and what denomination of) church that the President attends does not fall into the scope of a religion and politics blogger.

I get my tasty religion-and-politics mix at Belief.net:
.
http://www.beliefnet.com/News/index.aspx

OT: But since this is the top post. Must read here:
.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/28816321/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
/
Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression
/
MATT TAIBBI
.
The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it’s everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
/
Any attempt to construct a narrative around all the former Goldmanites in influential positions quickly becomes an absurd and pointless exercise, like trying to make a list of everything. What you need to know is the big picture: If America is circling the drain, Goldman Sachs has found a way to be that drain — an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.
/
They achieve this using the same playbook over and over again. The formula is relatively simple: Goldman positions itself in the middle of a speculative bubble, selling investments they know are crap. Then they hoover up vast sums from the middle and lower floors of society with the aid of a crippled and corrupt state that allows it to rewrite the rules in exchange for the relative pennies the bank throws at political patronage. Finally, when it all goes bust, leaving millions of ordinary citizens broke and starving, they begin the entire process over again, riding in to rescue us all by lending us back our own money at interest, selling themselves as men above greed, just a bunch of really smart guys keeping the wheels greased. They’ve been pulling this same stunt over and over since the 1920s — and now they’re preparing to do it again, creating what may be the biggest and most audacious bubble yet.

No worries Gunny: AS = OT
~
And as long as we’re posting Taibbi, I’ll add his wonderful takedown of Zakaria from last week:
~
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/22506
~
“It’s one thing to say that Citi wasted some of the money taxpayers sent its way via the bailout; it’s another thing to say Citi wasted some of the taxpayers’ money by upholstering the pillows on the private jet Sandy Weill took to Mexico over Christmas vacation with Hermes scarves. It’s one thing to say Wall Street bankers felt pressure to chase profits; it’s another thing to say they achieved those profits by systematically robbing a whole generation of pensioners and working-class homeowners, under the noses of the politicians they bought with tens of millions in campaign contributions.”
~
But hey, some lobbyists are OK, so no worries! There are those who think the system is fundamentally f@cked and those who think that a few bad apples have spoiled things. You decide.

AS=OT….haha, classic.
~
JC, you should read…http://www.leftcurve.org/LC29WebPages/Chomsky.html
~
I’m copy/pasting this question to you from “How Diplomacy Works”
I would like your honest opinions on Noam Chomsky. While he is rightly considered a champion of the Palestinian cause and has furthered, more than any other intellectual, the documentation of the transgressions perpetrated against the Palestinians and refutation of the perpetuated false equivalences in allocating culpability, Chomsky appears to unequivocally deflect the ultimate blame away from Israel itself and onto the United States. While American complicity is undeniable, the inherent problem has little to do with any real American interest and nearly everything to do with Israeli-Zionist expansionist goals. Yet, it has troubled me over the years how Chomsky always reverts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to an indictment of American imperialism. This is not wholly unfounded, but to largely reject Israeli guilt while making such an assertion strikes me intentionally dishonest. As a young man Chomsky was a committed Zionist, albeit rarely discussed. Do either of you agree that Chomsky is torn between his humanity, evident in his views on the Palestinians, and his loyalty to Israel, illustrated by evasively deflecting Israeli guilt upon the United States?
~
I have always respected Noam Chomsky and have considered him one of the foremost experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, I simply cannot reconcile his defense of Israel, by way of his omission of explicit guilt, with his sense of Palestinian righteousness. This has always struck me as an inherently contradictory standpoint, however relevant and accurate his documentation has been.
~

gysgt213: ” .. So to me these type of posts push down other worth talking about posts. ..”

Topics worthier than the epic struggle between good and evil?

Hey guys, leave my favorite Bible Gal alone!
Maybe you dare not care what will happen to your measly, Cheney-type vestige of a soul in the here-after. But many of us do – and so we read Amy Sullivan.

Jeez, N-R, that’s a “question”!? I’ll set aside the lengthy article you attached, simply due to little time/inclination to get too deeply into this morass. But a couple of quick thoughts:
~
1. Firstly, I’d say “deflecting blame” is a mischaracterization of his work. I think he correctly blames both. For an ex. of his balanced criticism, see here:
~
http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N63/chomskytalk.html
~
2. The notion that the root problem has little to do with American interests I deem naive. That’s like saying Americans bases are altruistically placed in Japan merely to protect its citizens, as opposed to American interests in the region. Someone once deemed the J-islands themselves floating US battleships in a game of geopolitical risk.
~
3. Of the $30 billion we’ll provide the Israelis over the next decade, as you’re surely aware, nearly all of those funds will go to the purchase of weapons, the vast majority of which are of US manufacture (i.e. the happy MIC). Thus, whenever a Palestinian is killed by the Israeli military, odds are it’s with your tax $ and American-made guns/bombs.
~
4. Though I loathe the beast that is Tommy Boy Friedman, he once said something I found spot-on re: N. Korea, that at any pt. if China wanted the NKoreans to put an end to their nuke program they’d simply have to whisper into Kim’s ear, shut it down or we turn off your electricity. They’re not merely the NK patron, without Chinese support, NK would cease to function within months. Of course, this is not something the Chinese or even the Russians are willing to consider, as they’re thrilled to have a buffer against western interests in the region. This equation is, of course, symmetrical where South Korea or Taiwan is concerned. Israel is little more than a fort in the middle east, an ally in our own failing but still determined grasp at empire. Cut off from our financial and military support and perhaps equally damaging, our diplomatic cover at the UN, and Israel is immediately forced to take rational steps towards lasting peace.
~
BTW, see Chalmers Johnson for a fuller illustration of our forts abroad:
~
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175091/chalmers_johnson_baseless_expenditures
~
A final note, the powers that be here in Asia or SW Asia have no interest in peace or reconciliation–if peace is achieved the great game and that monstrous gravy train comes to an end.

Exiled:
.
I can’t explain what I’m trying to say as well as I would like, so I will have to do so as well as I am able and hope that you will be able to comprehend what I am trying to convey.
.
Chomsky’s discussion of foreign policy generally tends to focus on the US. I assume this is because he is a US citizen, and his audiences are generally US citizens, and US citizens could conceivably be involved in making policy in the US, whereas they would not be involved in making policy in other countries (unless the US has installed a puppet government or whatever).
.
It is incorrect to assert that he apportions the blame on the US and not on Israel. He blames the US to the extent that the US is responsible for events. What’s the use in blaming other countries? Why say, Israel should do this differently? It isn’t his business, or our business, to say what Israel or any other country should or shouldn’t do. His business, as a US citizen, is the policy of his own country. America has no moral standing to tell other countries what is correct or incorrect to do, and so he generally doesn’t “place blame” on other countries–he just states what has occurred, and to what extent the US was involved, since that’s the part that we can (or, to the extent that our elected officials do whatever they want, can’t) control.
.
This is my understanding from what I recall of his works that I’ve read so far (which have been a pretty random assortment). I haven’t noticed any difference in his treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from Vietnam or Iran or anything else — it’s all focused on providing facts, and emphasizing the choices by US personnel that caused the outcomes that occurred.

2B, good point about the context of his speeches, writings etc. I’d add that his condemnation of US policy or attribution of blame is often in response to dominant narratives (MSM & otherwise) that he perceives as deeply flawed–those that whitewash American history or influence in whatever region being analyzed. See, for instance, Cuba (pre Castro), Iran (pre 1979), the list goes on and on.
~
Whether someone is excusing Israel (neo-cons) or condemning them exclusively while excusing the US (often anti-semites), Chomsky’s roles are to illustrate fully the historical record, first and foremost, then to investigate what contributes to an immutable problem’s continuation. And the point 2B makes about consistency is also key–see Manufacturing Consent, and the different responses to atrocities in E. Timor vs. Cambodia.

We really need an atheist president so we can be spared this foolishness.

Maybe you won’t answer to Bible Girl, but ‘Church Lady’ seems entirely appropriate now.

re: #7 square1 Says:
(Thursday, July 2, 2009 at 7:07 pm )

If you don’t care about this dynamic (God and politics) then I am not sure it is entirely necessary to post your disapproval.

But square1, that’s just the issue. Her ‘beat’ is “God and politics”, in particular US politics and religion. But her posts almost invariably focus on the trivial; e.g. here with the Obama family’s concerns about a DC ‘home’ church. And given that the bulk of the regular commenters here in the Swamp appear to be some serious (citizen) policy wonks and information junkies, such light-weight offerings demand dismissive criticisms.
.
How about something substantive ? Say, an investigation or even cursory review of the current thinking of the administration on select topical religious issues and policy. Like, what the heck’s going on with that (whose name I can’t remember) office of religious affairs. Or, what is the current thinking of America’s religious political/activist institutions and/or maybe a rundown of their current activities in light of the much more sane secular orientation of the administration. Or, unless I’ve missed it, how about some informed musings on faith and the development or implementation of public policy, the Obama administration versus the Bush(2) administration.
.
But definitely, given the paucity of pithy topics which seems to strike the Swamp periodically, when AS does get around to a posting, a little more substance in her area of concentration would be nice. I’m just, primarily, a lurker who comes here for the insigthful and often hilarious analyses and snark the rest o’ y’all put up.
.
I see jcapan, right after your post, linked to you saying effectively that (serious posters looking for serious content and offering up serious discussion) in the Senate Committee Health Reform Bill topic (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/07/02/a-senate-committees-health-reform-bill/?apage=2#comment-77495) while inexplicably engaging the spob.
.
And as usual, I’m late as h@ll on my responses. How in the devil do y’all stay up all hours of the night reading, researching, and posting on these boards ? If I’m not at work I’m on the way to bed. Then I get around to checking and it seems like I been away for a week ! Good thing I’m not susceptible to feelings of inferiority or inadequacy or anything like that…

I thought the first six words of the article were superb. The rest, alas, presumed that we were dim enough to find significance in their flummery.

Friar Tuck for Grand Inquisitor.. I mean, religion and politics correspondent!

Jcapan, Commenter
~
Firstly, in no way was my comment intended to suggest that the US is not thoroughly embedded in the affairs of Israel, and thus complicit in its illegal actions. The continued cover at the UN, the ridiculous level of unaccountable funding, and the continued assistance in propagandizing the conflict is certainly an indictment of US culpability. However, it is a fallacy to believe that Israel serves the interests of the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth and it completely neglects the pervasive influence of AIPAC, the true reason behind our backing of Israel. The “Politics of Antisemitism” edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair and “The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy” by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt lucidly articuate the true nature of American complicity and its source. If Israel were a strategic asset than what explains American refusal to allow Israeli military cooperation when we have had our own military operations in the region? Gulf War? Afghanistan? Current Iraq? If Israel were such a stalwart asset, we would undoubtedly seek their assistance. In truth, Israel is a liability. Whether American officials recognize this is irrelevant to reality. Israeli actions over decades is a direct source of Middle East animosity against the United States.
~
As for Chomsky, in all his works when cataloging Israeli atrocities he unequivocally refers to each incident as US backed, US approved, US sanctioned, with US arms, to such an extent that he appears to breeze over the immorality of those actually perpetrating these illegal acts. And the obstacle to peace, according to Chomsky is not Israel, it is US rejectionism. This, again, is a mischaracterization. The truth, finally admitted by Chomsky in a 2009 article “Exterminate All the Brutes” (the basis of which was the talk to which you linked, JC) is that the obstacle is US-Israeli rejectionism. It has taken him over 40 years to make this declaration.
~
Now, I certainly understand that as an American Chomsky’s priority is to hold the US accountable. But that is not to say that he hasn’t the right to thoroughly and accurately apportion blame where blame is applicable. The notion that we are Americans, and thus limited in our discourse to American complicity is unfounded. This has never before stopped academics, pundits, and journalists from exhortations on world affairs.

destor23 at 8:42 am: We really need an atheist president so we can be spared this foolishness.
Ouch!
And on the way to realize your need, you will be fighting against a desperate corporate America, AIPACs and the Bill Gates.

Hey, how are we, the imperial and the only superpower, going to conquer and dominate the rest of the world? The military option only works in the short run, the initial “shock and awe” stage. For the long run, we need the psyche war of our ‘religion’.
And corporate America and the wealthy need religion too. For it is said that religion is what keeps the starving masses from garroting the rich.
[[ Look unto heaven for your rewards, so they are told.]]

“I know I’m a bit dim”
Stop that! We deserve some sort of challenge. You’re taking all the fun out it.

N-R, we’ll simply have to disagree here. Mind you, I’m not saying our rel’ship with Israel is in our strategic interest, but every US admin. since I’s creation, R or D, operates as if it is. The most important region on the globe, strategically speaking, where virtually every nation perceives us as a hostile force, and then there’s Israel, with nukes no less. If they’re not a bulwark against those Washington perceives as their enemies, I don’t know who is. Here’s an excellent take on Mearsheimer and Walt.
~
http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=416
~
As with Blankfort, I may share M & W’s bottom line conclusions, that our relationship w/I undermines American interests, but these authors are ultimately outliers. Just b/c certain voices are marginalized does not automatically mean the wares they’re peddling are accurate. Chomsky is an outlier but he’s almost always correct in his views. The entire fo-po apparatus in Washington disagrees with the men you’ve linked to. They may disagree with Chomsky but the distinction being that he rightly perceives how important the Pentagon views I. These men may care passionately about the Palestinian cause, but they’re simply ignoring voices that carry far greater weight in our administrations past and present.
~
So, while you and I may agree personally about the liabilities inherent in American policy, this is the reality:
~
http://www.fmep.org/reports/special-reports/strategic-nuclear-and-missile-developments-in-the-middle-east-facing-armageddon/israel-u.s.-strategic-cooperation-reaffirmed-and-reinvigorated
~
And note this was not my pt: “The notion that we are Americans, and thus limited in our discourse to American complicity is unfounded.” I was simply alluding to the context of Chomsky’s discourse. The idea that I can’t condemn the Chinese for their activities in Tibet etc. is absurd. I do get agitated, however, when our gov’t lectures other nations about human rights etc. when our own record is so horrid.

JC
~
The notion that we are Americans, and thus limited in our discourse to American complicity is unfounded. This was in response to Commenter’s post, forgive me for my lack of clarity.
~
As for US administration, I would have to strongly disagree with you. Few have actually considered Israel a strategic asset, though all have eventually succumb to the Israeli lobby. Ford, Carter, and Bush I all opposed Israeli actions that would jeopardize American interests and America’s standing in the Middle East. As VP under Reagan, Bush advocated a cessation of aid and implementation of sanctions against Israel. He was naturally overruled. As President, on the eve of the Madrid Peace Conference, Israeli PM Shamir demanded a massive US loan, which Bush balked at on the grounds that such a loan preceding a peace initiative would alienate particular parties. Shamir protested and AIPAC began its intense pressure of Congress. Bush was forced to take his case public, issuing one the more brazenly defiant press conferences of any US administration with regard to Israel. He stated:
A debate now [over loans to Israel] could well destroy our ability to bring one or more of the parties to the peace table… If necessary I will use my veto power to keep that from happening. We are up against some powerful political forces… very strong and effective groups that go up to the Hill. We’ve only got one lonely little guy down here doing it… [but] I am going to fight for what I believe. It may be popular politically but probably not… the question isn’t whether it’s good for 1992 politics. What’s important here is that we give the process a chance. And I don’t care if I only get one vote… I believe the American people will be with me. Just months ago, American men and women in uniform, risked their lives to defend Israelis in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles, and indeed Desert Storm, while winning a war against aggression, also achieved the defeat of Israel’s most dangerous adversary…despite our own economic worries [we have sent aid totaling] nearly one thousand dollars for each Israeli man, woman, and child.
~
This rhetoric prompted the “letter of 76,” signed by 76 US Senators which strongly opposed Bush’s views and demanded he publicly state his enduring alliance with Israel. This extreme pressure, with the override authority, convinced Bush of his losing cause.
~
I recently emailed Jay Blankfort, who was kind enough to respond. He had some very interesting points about US executives bucking Israel. Kennedy, for example, publicly supported Resolution 194, considered the Palestinians refugee issue to be central to peace negotiations, adamantly opposed Israeli development of nuclear weapons, and his Justice Department was working to register the American Zionist Council, the umbrella groups for Israel’s lobby, as a foreign agent. These measures, along with every other Kennedy initiative, were never entirely pursued due to Kennedy’s abruptly uncompleted term.
~
Both Bush II and Obama pressured Israel early in their terms, only to be verbally lambasted by Congress by way of harsh letters, which were written by AIPAC.
~
JC, it is not US administrations that support Israel. They see no strategic ally in Israel or its deplorable actions. The branch of US government that is securely in the pocket of Israel is the legislature. They act fiercely against any executive who contradicts Israel’s will, evident through the Congressional letters to Bush I, Bush II, and Obama. AIPAC controls Congress, who in turn reign in unruly President’s who dare to have personal agendas on the matter. AIPAC must be broken before we can win back our Congress and expect them to work on behalf of America. With an independent Congress, American presidents will be free to suspend our one-way benefits to Israel pending adherence to international law.

Just getting back online now N-R. I can appreciate the alternative views, including those challenging Chomsky, who is hardly infallible. Lefties like us rarely have much tolerance for practical reality (i.e. our achilles). Then again, reality more often than not is defined by disappointment and failure. We’re probably not going to see eye to eye on all of this, but re: the scope of the problem, the solutions, and the boon it’d be to US standing in the region and the world, I’d guess we can largely agree, which is something.

Indeed. Though, you should, when the time presents itself, read the Blankfort article to which I linked above.
Cheers

JC
~
SCO, BRIC…
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=35157&tx_ttnewsbackPid=13&cHash=277da2524e

[...] David chapel their primary place of worship. (Even though Obama subsequently confirmed the story in several different [...]