BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG
We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
I think the murder of Chris Kyle was a tragedy. It was so sad that he survived the horrors of war only to come home to his family and then be murdered by a fellow vet he was trying to help. But I do not see him as a martyr for his faith, and I reject the arguments in the Christian community that his military service is a testimony for Christianity. Christ said "Blessed are the peacemakers", he didn't say blessed are the warriors. What each vet had to do in battle ends up being between him or her and God. I believe if the person who has taken another persons life while serving in the military sincerely ask God to forgive him their sin ("Thou shall not kill" is one of the 10 Commandments) that sin is forgive and God wipes the slate clean. But Chris Kyle's attitude reminds me of the Islamic jihadist who feel they are doing their god's will in the wars raging in the Middle East and parts of Africa as well as the terrorism they commit in these areas as well as Europe and the rest of the world. Chris Kyle took it upon himself to judge and sentence each person he killed as a sniper as evil and deserving death by his hand. Christ instructs Christians to leave the ultimate sentence to God. That is why I do not view 'American Sniper' as a film celebrating Christianity or the story of Chris Kyle's military service to be used as an example of Christian service in the military. This from +Sojourners .....
It’s no surprise when we talk about the influential power of the
Christian pocketbook when it comes to politics, culture, or any other
part of the social fabric in the United States. The conversation has
been evolving for quite a while now, but that doesn’t mean that it
doesn’t have its standout moments. One such moment was the unexpected
box office power of The Passion of the Christ. Large numbers
from various faith communities urged their members to buy tickets in an
effort to send a message with their purchase. They wanted the box office
numbers to speak for Christian influence in the notably secular realm
that was, and is, Hollywood. They wanted their money to talk.
Images via 'American Sniper' and 'Selma Movie' on Facebook.
I don’t see it as much of a coincidence that, according to The Hollywood Reporter, American Sniper
finished its four-day debut on Monday — Martin Luther King Jr. Day —
with a historic $107.3 million take. The previous best for a
non-Hollywood-tentpole drama? The Passion of the Christ with $83.8 million.
Now,
these two openings aren’t directly comparable. There are obviously
different sets of circumstances surrounding the two films, including
star-actor power, Hollywood support, and (for the purpose of our
discussion) how much Christianized effort was involved. The buzz around American Sniper isn’t the same as when people purchased tickets to show support for The Passion of the Christ, even if they didn’t plan on seeing the film. Still, American Sniper brings us face to face with the issue Americans can’t escape in our modern society: the conflation of faith and patriotism.
A
week ago, Sojourners ran an article from Religion News Service
highlighting the role of Christian faith for Chris Kyle, the sniper and
main character played by Bradley Cooper in the Clint Eastwood film.
Several quotes from his book were used to call attention to the
prominence of faith for Kyle in real life versus the lighter take on it
shown in the movie. The article ends with one such quote:
“I
believe the fact that I’ve accepted Jesus as my savior will be my
salvation. … But in that backroom or whatever it is when God confronts
me with my sins, I do not believe any of the kills I had during the war
will be among them. Everyone I shot was evil. I had good cause on every
shot. They all deserved to die.”
Even if such language is
patriotic for those who defend a black-and-white, us-versus-them
ideology when it comes to combat, it is disturbing at best in a
Christian context. First, Kyle makes the mistake of judging the
life-value of another, something Christ implores us to leave to God
(Matthew 7:1-2). Second, such language highlights the issue I mentioned
earlier: the conflation of faith and patriotism. It’s a difficult idea
to pull apart and examine, especially if both subjects are important to
your daily life and identity. Even so, we’re asked to be thoughtful
about our relationship to God and our neighbor. We’re even asked to go
beyond that by loving God and loving our neighbor in the same way we
love ourselves. Believing that ending the life of a neighbor, no matter
what they’ve done, is outside the realm of sin or God’s judgment is a
precarious Christian position to take.
Yet many are quick to
defend the problematic Christianity of Kyle. They defend it with a
vehemence, and they defend the beliefs present in the book — and now in
the movie — in many cases because they personally hold similar beliefs.
This is what makes all of this so troubling for me: Many Christians are
eager to speak out in the wider culture using their money (something I’m
not sure is a completely Christian or grace-inspired tactic to begin
with, but that’s another discussion), yet the overwhelmingly dominant
film is a war biopic chronicling violent individual accomplishments, not
the one about one of the greatest teachers and leaders of our time, a
preacher with a Christ-driven message of non-violence.
The latest box office numbers for Selma were also released today following the MLK holiday weekend. The film reportedly brought in $11.5 million through Monday, bringing its domestic total to $29.1 million.Selma debuted last month, and it has made roughly under one-third of American Sniper debut earnings.
There’s a disconnect here, right? Even while we don't have the data to
show the connections between the Christian movie audience and the
audience of American Sniper, we can still talk about how
certain films are supported financially throughout the culture, some
pick up support from perceived Christian audiences and some struggle to
gain traction in Christian communities despite their alignment with
Christian values. While viewers of both Selma and American Sniper
certainly fall on a spectrum between religious and non-religious, we’re
still talking about a lack of support in the U.S. market for a movie
that places justice and Christ-centered values front and center.
You might say that the dominant film is the one speaking to the
dominant culture. It's easier to imagine heroics in terms of violence
and war rather than peaceful protest. It's easier to imagine that civil
rights are an outside phenomena, one that doesn't have to worry or
bother those on the inside of the mainstream dominant culture. It's
easier to lend quick support to catchy militaristic phrases than love
your enemy. It's definitely easier to defend America as "the promised
land" rather than notice what work desperately needs to be done to make
it a "promised land" for all.
We can safely say the box office numbers for Selma signal a lack of support from Christian communities because we have financial successes like The Passion of the Christ to
point to when we talk about large groups of Christians using their
money and resources to name their priorities. We can name it as a lack
of support because many of us who follow Christian media and news are
seeing the renewed groundswell behind the story of Chris Kyle as an
example of American Christian service and morality, rather than someone
like Martin Luther King Jr. And we can name it as a lack of support
because works like Selma offer us chances to renew the
conversation on freedom, justice, civil rights and the overarching
Christian ethic, yet they struggle to make headway.
Obviously,
we're not making the most of our opportunities to lift up the art and
commentary currently speaking to Christian truth. Maybe the problem is
that we’re getting confused about which version of Christianity we
support. Mark Lockard is an editor
at Ministry Matters. He has a Master of Theological Studies degree from
Vanderbilt Divinity School, writes and draws for the religion and
culture blog DisembodiedBeard.net, and lives in Nashville. This article originally appeared at Ministry Matters.
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.
2014 was a challenging year for my family and I don't know how we would have got through it without God, family and friends. Actually, it started in December 2013, when Mom's eye surgery for her glaucoma went bad and she had to have a second surgery in January 2014 and then a third in May 2014. That surgery saved her from going completely blind, now she has one eye she is blind in and the other she can see shapes and variations of light. Going blind is a very difficult process psychologically, very frustrating for someone who has had sight and especially for someone who is very independent but we are working through it. Previous to Mom's May eye surgery Jennie and I went to PA and got our parents and brought them to stay at Jennie's (with her family, Ted and Katie), we decided it was no longer safe for them to live way out in Scandia, PA, isolated as the house is. Then my father had a heart attack in July, the day before we were supposed to fly to Colorado for a family reunion. He has recovered and we thank God he didn't have his heart attack on the plane. Dad is 85, has emphysema and is also an Alzheimer patient. The Sunday before Thanksgiving my brother Kirk's 15 year old granddaughter, Shayde, died from complications from her heart transplant. Then my sister, Jennie, was diagnosed with stage three ovarian cancer the day before Thanksgiving. We still had a great Thanksgiving dinner because we are a family of faith and have a lot to be thankful for. Jennie had her surgery at UVMC in Charlottesville, VA the following Tuesday but they weren't able to get all the cancer so she starts her chemo on 28 JAN. Prayers for her healing and recovery will be greatly appreciated. I moved from Herndon, VA to Ashburn, VA the weekend before Thanksgiving, and Mom and Dad moved in with me on 19 December. Mom fell out at Jennie's Christmas Eve, hit her head and we spent hours at the hospital in Warrenton, VA while she was checked out, other than a huge lump on her head and being sore from the fall and from Dad falling on top of her (he was trying to stop her from falling) she was OK. Then my Dad had a TIA (mini-stroke) on 5 JAN and had to spend the night in Landsdown INOVA hospital. He is OK, this is an expected occurrence for someone who had as severe brain stem stroke as he did in 1992, the fact that he survived with no residual damage is nothing short of a miracle. Still this is the second TIA he has had in less than a year, he had one in March 2014. And now Mom has some sort of infection in her legs that has caused severe cellulitis, her doctor is treating her with very powerful antibiotics but is stumped as to the cause because all her lab work came back OK. She has until Monday to show some sign of improvement or she is going to the hospital, doctor's orders. So I have not had much time for e mails or blogs or politics or much of anything else. I am not complaining, just have more important things to deal with. My family will always have priority in my life, I thank God for the blessing they are and that I have them. Peace
+Andy Borowitzmakes fun of the new members, Democrats, gop & tea-baggers alike, of the 114th US Congress as they take office because the vast majority of them deserve it. He also points out this new congress is already one of the most hated in the history of the institution, both from+The New Yorker .....
Credit Photograph by Chip Somodevilla / Getty WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Sixty-four
unskilled workers will report to new jobs in Washington, D.C. on
Tuesday as part of a federal jobs program that provides employment for
people unable to find productive work elsewhere.
The
new hires, who have no talents or abilities that would make them
employable in most workplaces, will be earning a first-year salary of
$174,000.
For
that sum, the new employees will be expected to work a hundred and
thirty-seven days a year, leaving them with two hundred and twenty-eight
days of vacation.
Some critics have blasted the
federal jobs program as too expensive, noting that the workers were
chosen last November in a bloated and wasteful selection process that
cost the nation nearly four billion dollars.
But
Davis Logsdon, a University of Minnesota economics professor who
specializes in labor issues, said that the program is necessary to
provide work “for people who honestly cannot find employment anywhere
else.”
“Expensive as this program is, it is much better to have these people in jobs than out on the street,” he said.
Credit Photograph by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)
– In a troubling sign for the 114th Congress, a new poll released on
Tuesday indicates that the day-old legislative body is the most hated in
the nation’s history.
According to the poll,
conducted by the University of Minnesota’s Opinion Research Institute,
only eight per cent of those surveyed approved of the job Congress is
doing, a scathing indictment of the legislators’ first day on the job.
The
114th Congress started the day on a slightly more positive note,
garnering a ten-per-cent approval rating, but after the House of
Representatives reëlected John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to a new term as
Speaker, the number sank to eight.
On the Senate
side, Joni Ernst (R.-Iowa), newly elected to the most despised Congress
in American history, said that the low approval number was no cause for
concern.
“If you ask somebody to pick a number between one and ten, eight is a pretty high number,” she said. “So it’s all good.”
After Senator Ernst made her comment, Congress’s approval rating plummeted to four per cent.
Andy Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes the Borowitz Report for newyorker.com.
LOOK at the faces of the repiglicans and tea-baggers during Pres Obama's State of the Union speech. The are amazed someone is actually comparing what they consider to be their right to the reality of the rest of the nation. Thanks a lot all you stupid, lazy and self-centered people who voted for this lot or who didn't bother to vote at all! We've got a least 2 years of their oligarchical, plutocratic bullshit to put up with! I just hope you are the ones who suffer the most from the 114th Congress' policies! From +Andy Borowitz, +Oxfam GB and +World Socialist Web Site .....
Six Weeks’ Paid Leave Opposed By People With Thirty-Three Weeks’ Paid Leave By Andy Borowitz
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—President Obama’s proposal to give
workers six weeks of paid leave is meeting strong opposition from a
group of people who annually receive thirty-three weeks of paid leave. Members of the group heard the President’s proposal on Tuesday
night, one of the few nights of the year when they are required to
report to their workplace. The opponents of paid leave, who show up for work a hundred and
thirty-seven days per year and receive paid leave for the other two
hundred and twenty-eight, were baffled by other moments in the
President’s speech. For example, they were confused by Obama’s challenge to try to
survive on a full-time job that pays fifteen thousand dollars, since
they all currently hold a part-time job that pays a hundred and
seventy-four thousand dollars.
Oxfam: Richest one percent set to control more wealth than the bottom 99 percent By Andre Damon The richest one percent of the world’s population will have more
wealth next year than the other 99 percent combined, according to a
report issued Monday by the Oxfam charity. The report shows that, far
from moderating or reversing, the pace at which the global financial
oligarchy is monopolizing society’s wealth is increasing.
The report observes that while the wealth of the world’s 80 richest
people doubled between 2009 and 2014, the wealth of the poorest half of
the world’s population (3.5 billion people) was lower in 2014 than it
was in 2009. In 2010, it took 388 billionaires to match the wealth of the
bottom half of the earth’s population; by 2013, the figure had fallen to
just 92 billionaires. It fell to 80 in 2014.
Oxfam timed the release of its report to coincide with the opening of
the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Some 1,700 private jets
are expected to descend on and around the resort town, bearing about
100 billionaires and over 2,000 corporate executives, celebrities,
central bankers and heads of state. They will be joined by a small army
of journalists.
US Secretary of State John Kerry will join French President François
Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel, and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, along with another 35 world
leaders.
Other participants will include Jack Ma, who made $25 billion in the
initial public offering of Alibaba last year, and Bill Gates, the
world’s richest man. Google’s Eric Schmidt, with a net worth of some $8
billion, will co-chair the forum. Some 4,500 Swiss military personnel
will be deployed to protect the 2,500 attendees.
The millionaires and billionaires assembled at Davos, to whom Oxfam
is appealing, constitute the very social layer whose obscene enrichment
is decried in the group’s report.
The growth of social inequality documented in the report is the
consequence of policies enacted by the ruling class in the aftermath of
the 2008 financial crisis, which a significant share of this year’s
Davos participants helped trigger. Governments responded to the collapse
of asset values and the insolvency of major banks by pumping some $12
trillion dollars into the financial markets by means of bank bailouts,
near-zero interest rates, and central bank money-printing (quantitative
easing).
This virtually free cash was used to drive up the world’s stock
markets and corporate profits to record highs. The same governments and
central banks pursued brutal austerity policies against the working
class, driving tens of millions into poverty.
The day the Oxfam report appeared, bankers and speculators around the
world were rubbing their hands in anticipation of an expansion of
quantitative easing by the European Central Bank at its policy-setting
meeting this week.
The Oxfam report notes that “2010 marks an inflection point in the
share of global wealth” going to the top one percent. This was also the
year that the US Federal Reserve’s money-printing operation was expanded
with the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing.
Oxfam also found, “In 2014, the richest 1 percent of people in the
world owned 48 percent of global wealth, leaving just 52 percent to be
shared between the other 99 percent of adults on the planet.” It added,
“Almost all of that 52 percent is owned by those included in the richest
20 percent, leaving just 5.5 percent for the remaining 80 percent of
people in the world”—some 5.6 billion people.
Oxfam, citing figures from Forbes, noted that there were
1,645 billionaires in the world, nearly thirty percent of whom (492
people) live in the United States. “Billionaires from the US make up
approximately half of the total billionaires on the Forbes list with interests in the financial sector,” the charity wrote.
In a reflection of the parasitism that has become embedded in the
world capitalist system, the financial and insurance sector minted more
billionaires than any other industry. The report states: “Since March
2013, there have been 37 new billionaires from these sectors, and six
have dropped off the list. The accumulated wealth of billionaires from
these sectors has increased from $1.01tn to $1.16tn in a single year, a
nominal increase of $150bn, or 15 percent.”
Oxfam Director Winnie Byanyima will be one of the co-chairs of the
Davos event, along with World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and Google’s
Schmidt. The charity declared, “Byanyima will use her position at Davos
to call for urgent action to stem this rising tide of inequality,
starting with a crackdown on tax dodging by corporations.”
The attempt to present the gathering at Davos as a forum for
addressing social inequality takes on an absurd and grotesque character.
In the press release announcing its report, Oxfam quotes Lady Lynn
Forester de Rothschild, the chair of the Coalition for Inclusive
Capitalism, as saying: “All those gathering at Davos who want a stable
and prosperous world should make tackling inequality a top priority.”
Lady Rothschild is married to British financier Evelyn de Rothschild,
whose net worth is estimated at $20 billion. She spoke at an Oxfam
event Monday. The press release for the event declared, “Inequality is
spiraling out of control, but consensus on taking action against this
issue of our time is gathering pace. From…Barack Obama to Pope Francis,
there is clear agreement that extreme inequality is damaging societies,
governance and economic growth.”
These warnings about the growth of inequality are rooted in fears
within the financial aristocracy that the ever more obvious and
repulsive gap between the super-rich and everyone else will have
revolutionary consequences.
Richest One Per Cent Disappointed to Possess Only Half of World’s Wealth By Andy Borowitz
DAVOS (The Borowitz Report)—A new Oxfam report indicating that
the wealthiest one per cent possesses about half of the world’s wealth
has left the richest people in the world “reeling with disappointment,” a
leading billionaire said on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters in Davos, Switzerland, where he is
attending the World Economic Forum, the hedge-fund owner Harland
Dorrinson said, “I think I speak for a lot of my fellow billionaires
when I say I thought we were doing a good deal better than that.” Calling the Oxfam findings “sobering,” he said that he hoped
they would serve “as a wake-up call to billionaires everywhere that it’s
time to up our game.” “Quite frankly, a lot of us thought that by buying politicians,
rewriting tax laws, and hiding money overseas, we were getting it done,”
said Dorrinson, who owns the hedge fund Garrote Capital. “If, at the
end of the day, all we control is a measly half of the world’s wealth,
clearly we need to do more—much more.” In Davos, Dorrinson is huddling with other billionaires in the
hopes of setting an ambitious goal for the top one per cent: to own the
other half of the world’s wealth by 2025. While he considers this target “doable,” Dorrinson said that he
does not underestimate the challenge of wresting the other half from the
“vise-like grip” of the approximately seven billion people who comprise
the bottom ninety-nine per cent. “Getting that other half is not going to be a walk in the park,”
he said. “But ten years from now, when Oxfam says that the top one per
cent owns everything in the world, it’ll all have been worth it.”
Я виделодин ответ, который спрашивал,"Будут ли онименьше питьза Путина?" ЧерезAssociated Press:
Заместитель премьер-министраРоссииИгорьШувалов, выступая на Всемирном экономическомфоруме вДавосе, в пятницу предостерег Западот попытоксвергнуть президентаВладимира Путинаи заявил, чтороссияне готовыпожертвоватьсвоим богатствомв поддержку Путина. РоссияимеетдляПрошедший годбылсползания врецессиюна фонеспада вэкспортныхцен на энергоносители, а такжезападных санкцийпротивроли Москвыв конфликтев Украине, которая унесла более5000жизней.Были подняты вопросыв Россиии за рубежомлицена, которуюпростые россияневынуждены платитьза присоединениеКрымаявляется слишком высокой.
Шувалов, который, как полагают, является одним из самых богатых людейв правительстве, заявил, что он считаетпопыткиЗападасвергнутьПутинабудеттолькосплотить нациюдальше."Когдарусскийчувствует себялюбую иностраннуюдавление, он никогда не будетотказаться от своеголидера," сказалШувалов. ."Никогдамыневыживемлюбые трудностив стране-есть меньше пищи, потребляют меньше электроэнергиикомментарииШуваловавызвалисодержательныезамечания поРоссиисоциальных медиав том числеактивист оппозиции, который разместилфотографииШуваловаМоскве, Лондоне иАвстриидомов, чтобы проиллюстрировать, где вице-премьер. министрбудет испытыватьтрудностион описал.
Изображение вышеприходитчерезCopyranter, который отмечает, чтошрифтназывается "Голодные игры". Хитего связьв течение еще двухпредложенныхрекламных щитов.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor
Shuvalov, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, on Friday
warned the West against trying to topple President Vladimir Putin and
said that Russians are ready to sacrifice their wealth in Putin's
support. Russia has for the past year been sliding into recession amid a
slump in its energy export prices as well as Western sanctions against
Moscow's role in the conflict in Ukraine that has claimed more than
5,000 lives. Questions have been raised in Russia and abroad whether the
price that ordinary Russians are having to pay for the annexation of
Crimea is too high. Shuvalov, who is believed to
be one of the richest men in the government, said that what he considers
the West's attempts to oust Putin will only unite the nation further.
"When a Russian feels any foreign pressure, he will never give up his
leader," Shuvalov said. "Never. We will survive any hardship in the
country — eat less food, use less electricity. Shuvalov's comments
triggered pithy remarks on Russia social media including an opposition
activist who posted photos of Shuvalov's Moscow, London and Austria
homes to illustrate where the deputy prime minister would experience the
hardships he described.
The image above comes via Copyranter, who notes that the font is called "Hunger Games."Hit his link for two more suggested billboards.
isis has been murdering members of the opposition and those who refuse to convert to their perversion of Islam for months. Children, women, men, the elderly, Christians, all religious leaders ethnic minorities, other Muslims who actually follow the teaching of their faith, Kurds, academics, politicians, foriegn reporters and aid workers, anyone who is not an apostate, anyone who is not a follower of the corrupted, bastardized form of Islam they have created is subject to death at their hands. People do have to remember, isis is a product of the saudi arabian government concrolled religious institutions and the American and Western governments tolerance of and support and defense of saudi state sponsored religious intolerance and terrorism, all for oil. Western Europe, recently Canada, France and Belgium, have suffered the results of their governments policies. When will it come to the U.S.?
Pictures
emerge of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) fighters
apparently throwing a man from a building because he was gay
Photographs
have emerged that appear to show members of the Islamic State group in
Iraq throwing a man from a building in punishment for being gay.
The
graphic images, seemingly taken in the northern Isil controlled city of
Mosul, show a man being pushed to his death before a large crowd that
had gathered in the main square below.
One photograph, taken from
the top of the building, shows the man from behind, blindfolded and
with his hands tied across his back, being pushed to the ledge by his
executioner.
In another photo, a jihadist, his face covered with a
balaclava, is shown reading out the apparent sentence that was ruled in
the extremists' "Sharia court".
A caption for another photo says the man had been convicted of the practices of the "people of Lot", a euphemism for sodomy.
In punishment, the caption says, he must be "thrown from a high place".
The date of the execution is not clear. Photographs of a man being
thrown from a roof by Isil members, apparently in the same place first
emerged in December.
As the jihadists consolidate their control of parts of Iraq and
Syria they have implemented increasingly strict, medieval forms of law.
rep joe barton r tb TX is an idiot, but it not right for his opponents to spread falsehoods about him in an attempt to gain support for their position, in this case wind energy and addressing climate change. There is no need to make things up to prove how ignorant rep barton is, he does that well enough on his own. From +PolitiFact .....
Says. Rep. Joe Barton,
R-Texas, once said, "Wind is a finite resource and harnessing it would
slow the winds down, which would cause the temperature to go up."
— Facebook posts on Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 in a meme on social media
Widely shared meme oversimplifies Joe Barton's 2009 comment on wind energy, climate change
By Louis Jacobson on Thursday, January 15th, 2015 at 11:15 a.m.
Wind turbines at the Harvest Wind Farm in Oliver Township, Mich. (Associated Press)
A reader asked us to check this meme circulating on social media, featuring Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is not popular among
environmentalists. A former chairman of the powerful House Energy and
Commerce Committee, Barton is a staunch advocate for fossil fuels and expressed skepticism about the role of manmade carbon emissions in climate change.
Barton’s critics like to paint him as blindly supportive of Big Oil
and as anti-science. Exhibit A is a series of social media memes that
mock him for suggesting that wind power can actually intensify global
warming.
The most extreme version
we found said Barton had claimed that "wind power would stop the Earth
from rotating." That’s clearly not true, but it’s also not clear that
this claim was meant to be taken seriously. Instead, we decided to check
a less outrageous -- and more common -- meme mocking Barton.
A reader recently sent us a meme
featuring a picture of Barton alongside the quotation, "Wind is a
finite resource and harnessing it would slow the winds down which would
cause the temperature to go up." The meme’s creator went on to comment,
"The only thing more stupid than this idiot heading the House-Senate
energy conf(erence) is Michelle Bachmann's stint on the House
'Intelligence' Committee!" (Michele Bachmann's name is misspelled.)
Ultimately, we concluded that Barton’s words were significantly altered. What did Barton actually say?
As it turns out, the comments from the meme we’re checking stem from a
congressional hearing held almost six years ago, on Feb. 26, 2009.
As part of a lengthy question-and-answer session, Barton pressed
witnesses on some of the risks of shifting the nation’s energy portfolio
from fossil fuels to renewable sources. In one exchange, Barton referred to a paper by Jay Apt,
director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center and a
professor of technology at the Tepper School of Business. In turn, Apt’s
paper relied on research in an earlier paper by David W. Keith, currently a professor of applied physics and public policy at Harvard University.
Barton’s off-the-cuff comments are somewhat meandering, but the
general gist of what he said was to raise questions about some of the
downsides of using wind to generate electricity. "I am going to read a paragraph which is, if true, very ironic.
And this is from Dr. Apt’s paper, and I quote: ‘Wind energy is a finite
resource. At large scale, slowing down the wind by using its energy to
turn turbines has environmental consequences. A group of researchers at
Princeton University … found that wind farms may change the mixing of
air near the surface, drying the soil near the site. At planetary
scales, David Keith, who was then at Carnegie Mellon, and coworkers
found that if wind supplied 10 percent of expected global electricity
demand in 2100 … the resulting change in the earth’s atmospheric energy
might cause some regions of the world to experience temperature change
of approximately 1 degree Centigrade.’ … "Now, wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you
shift heat from areas where it is hotter to areas where it is cooler.
That is what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global
warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite
resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go
up? Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but
that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make
some sense. You stop something. You can’t transfer that heat and the
heat goes up. It is just something to think about."
Reading the full text shows that the meme glossed over some important nuances, perhaps by relying on a brief summation published by Time magazine in 2010.
First, even though the meme used quotation marks to frame the comment
as a single, unified quote, it’s actually a stitched-together mix of
several snippets from Barton’s remarks.
Second, the meme ignores that when Barton said that "wind is a finite resource," he was explicitly quoting Apt’s paper, rather than saying that was his personal belief.
Third, the meme overlooks that when Barton supposedly said that
harnessing the wind "would slow the winds down, which would cause the
temperature to go up," he was actually asking the witness a question
rather than stating his view.
And fourth, the meme ignores that Barton said in the same exchange,
"Now, I am not saying that is going to happen, Mr. Chairman." In other
words, what he was doing was posing a scenario to be discussed further.
So, while Barton’s comments clearly show an openness to the ideas he
addressed, the meme is off-base in suggesting that Barton was stating
his own opinion.
For the record, Barton’s spokesman, Sean Brown, told PolitiFact that
the congressman "believes in an all-of-the-above energy plan that
includes wind and solar power but also doesn’t ignore traditional
sources of energy like coal or natural gas." Is there any credibility to the idea that wind energy might contribute to global warming?
So Barton didn’t say what the meme said he did. But what about the
substance of the claim -- that wind turbines can exacerbate global
warming?
The idea isn’t entirely out of left field, but it’s a lot more complicated than it seems on the surface.
Let’s start with what was known at the time Barton made his comment six years ago. The paper ultimately referenced by Barton -- the one that Keith coauthored
-- found some intriguing interactions between wind turbines and
climate, namely that "very large amounts of wind power" can produce
changes to climate "at continental scales."
However, the authors leavened this assessment with a more optimistic
note -- that such changes in climate disappear at the global level, and
that, on balance, using wind power rather than fossil fuels reduces
climate change, rather than exacerbating it.
Keith, who didn’t respond to an inquiry from PolitiFact, and his
coauthors also emphasized that what negative impacts emerged from
wind-turbine use could be eased, fairly economically, by better turbine
design and placement.
Subsequent research has bolstered this conclusion.
A 2012 study that used satellite data for west-central Texas, published in Nature Climate Change and
co-authored by Liming Zhou of the State University of New York at
Albany, found a "significant warming trend" of up to 1.3 degrees
Fahrenheit per decade over wind farms, compared to nearby regions that
didn’t have wind farms. However, Zhou told the Daily Telegraph that the climatic changes from wind farms paled when compared to the impact of manmade global warming.
And Mark Z. Jacobson, a Stanford University professor of civil and environmental engineering, told PolitiFact that a 2012 paper
he coauthored found that the impact of large arrays of wind turbines
would be to cool climate -- not warm it. "That paper is the most
detailed to date," Jacobson said.
Jacobson agreed that even installing enough wind-power capacity to
power "half the world" would have "small" global impacts on climate,
even though the impacts locally could be more significant. If you weigh
the negatives of wind power against the negatives of fossil-fuel use, he
added, "there is only a net benefit of switching to wind." Our ruling
A social media meme says Barton once said, "Wind is a finite resource
and harnessing it would slow the winds down which would cause the
temperature to go up."
Barton raised that possibility while questioning a witness during a
2009 congressional hearing, but contrary to the meme’s implication, he
did not say that it was his personal belief. Rather, the meme makes fun
of Barton by stitching together parts of his comments in a way that is
misleading.
The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical
facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly
False.
sen marco rubio r tb FL is going to run for president in 2016. He has started his campaign of deception, manipulation, fear and hate, showing just what kind of presidency his would be. A Christian, yet he can't seem to run on the principles of his faith, I wounder why? Here he is attacking the poor and the social safety net they so desperately need, while saying nothing about federal corporate welfare that allows executives to keep their obscene pay packages while their companies receive tax breaks and government subsidies paid for by the 99%. This from +PolitiFact .....
"If people work and make more money, they lose more in benefits than they would earn in salary."
— Marco Rubio on Tuesday, January 13th, 2015 in his book, "American Dreams"
Marco Rubio in new book: People on welfare 'lose more in benefits than they would earn in salary'
By Steve Contorno on Wednesday, January 14th, 2015 at 11:56 a.m.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., released a new book, "American Dreams," on Tuesday, Jan. 13.
At the center of Sen. Marco Rubio’s new book, American Dreams, is the conservative idea that government stands in the way of lower- and middle-class Americans getting ahead.
Why don’t more Americans start small businesses? Government
regulation, Rubio says. Why do Americans pay so much for higher
education? Government subsidies for students drive up prices. Why don’t
low-income workers try to work more hours or strive for a promotion?
Government assistance disincentivizes it.
"If (low-income) people work and make more money, they lose more in
benefits than they would earn in salary," Rubio wrote in the book,
released Jan. 13.
This idea is at the heart of Rubio’s plan to tackle poverty, so it’s one we wanted to look at in depth. Welfare vs. work
Government benefits for low-income individuals and families come in
many forms: housing assistance, health care and money to purchase food,
among others. Additionally, some states provide further assistance with
local programs.
These programs, reserved for poor people, tend toramp down as income goes up, meaning the more money you make, the fewer benefits you receive. Makes sense.
That phasedown, though, creates cliffs that sometime lessen the value
of the increase in earnings. A similar effect occurs when people move
into a higher tax bracket as their income goes up.
Economists look at these changes in benefits and tax rates in terms
of their impact on every additional dollar earned. When the impact is
high, and a large chunk of the amount of every additional dollar earned
goes to taxes or to offset a decrease in benefits, it can affect
people’s desire to work more, said the Congressional Budget Office, the
chief fiscal scorekeeper for lawmakers. This situation becomes an
incentive for people "already in the workforce to put in fewer hours or
be less productive," the CBO said.
Is it possible that the benefits lost could be so great, that a
person would lose more in benefits than they would gain by an increase
in wages?
Sure. The Cato Institute, a libertarian policy shop, released a study
in 2013 that made this exact point. By analyzing the total benefits an
individual can receive in each state and from the federal government,
they determined that in nine states assistance payouts exceeded $35,000 a
year. Welfare paid better than a minimum wage job in 34 states, plus
the District of Columbia, they reported. We asked Rubio’s office for
more evidence, and we didn’t hear back.
Under such a scenario, an individual could lose more by working than staying in their current situation. ‘Typical’ low-income family
But what is that situation? To reach its headline-grabbing
conclusions, Cato claims it focused on a typical welfare family. But the
study focused on what a single mother with two children might qualify
for.
That’s an important distinction, and one that significantly alters
the playing field. Single mothers with multiple children are eligible
for considerably more benefits than poor individuals or married couples
with no children.
The report goes on to assume that the "typical" family receives seven
different forms of public assistance, but that assumption is a pretty
big leap. Here’s why:
There are four main federal programs: Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (food stamps); Medicaid or Child Health Insurance
Program (health care); Section 8 (housing assistance); and Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (welfare). According to the Congressional
Budget Office in 2012, most families do not receive assistance from more
than one of these programs.
In fact, just a quarter of single parents with children earning up to
250 percent of the federal poverty line are enrolled in two of those
programs. About 11 percent are enrolled in three or four.
If we look at all low-income households of every size and makeup,
then 17 percent of low-income households are enrolled in multiple
federal programs and only 1 percent receive benefits from all four of
them.
So choosing to look at a single mother receiving benefits from seven programs, as Cato does, is an extreme example.
Also, there are two widely used programs, the Earned Income Tax
Credit and the Child Tax Credit, that actually increase benefits for
very low-income individuals the more money that they make for their
first $10,000 in wages. The benefits then ramp down after someone earns
about $17,000 annually. This incentivizes and rewards poor parents who
work more, and therefore it actually decreases the marginal tax rate for
many low-income workers.
In part because of these two tax credits, it is quite uncommon that
someone would go from not working to working and lose more in benefits
than they would gain in income. ‘Possible but rare’
Let’s go back to looking at this issue in terms of income lost on
additional earnings. According to the Congressional Budget Office, there
are very few instances when all 100 cents of an additional dollar
earned would go to taxes and replacing lost benefits. In fact, among
low- and moderate-income taxpayers, less than one percent lose 80 cents or more of every additional dollar earned.
Those most affected would likely be individuals who earn near or just
above the poverty level (about $20,000 in a three-person household),
who are also enrolled in multiple benefit programs that are set to phase
out with any additional income. This is not the norm.
Most people earning at or near the poverty level lose about 30 percent in taxes and offset benefits on their additional income.
Losing 100 percent of every dollar earned to taxes or replacing lost
benefits is "possible but rare," said Eugene Steuerle at the Urban
Institute. "High 40 to 60 percent rates are more common, and, if one
adds in cost of transportation and clothing (not a tax but a loss from
working), higher still."
It’s difficult to know when or how people factor lost benefits in
their employment decisions, the Congressional Budget Office said.
Benefits from government assistance programs are complex and determined
by a multitude of factors, both financial (like salary, enrollment in
other assistance programs) and nonfinancial (marital status, number of
children). It would be hard for an individual to decide if working an
extra few hours a week or taking that promotion is going to impact their
benefits. Our ruling
In his book, Rubio wrote, "If people work and make more money, they lose more in benefits than they would earn in salary."
There is evidence that when a large chunk of the amount of every
additional dollar earned goes to taxes or to offset a decrease in
benefits, people work less. Further, there are scenarios where a
low-income individual with children receiving assistance from the
government through multiple programs could potentially lose more in
benefits than he or shewould gain by a slight or modest increase in income.
But these examples are a small minority. The vast majority of people
face some higher taxes and lost benefits when they make more money, but
they would still take home more in pay than they would under a lower
salary.
The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical
facts that would leave a different impression. We rate the statement
Mostly False.
Marco Rubio, American Dreams, Jan. 13, 2014
Cato Institute, "The Work Versus Welfare Tradeoff: 2013," 2013
Cato Institute, "Welfare: A Better Deal than Work," Aug. 21, 2013
Congressional Budget Office, "Effective Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers," November 2012
Congressional Budget Office, "Snapshot of Marginal Tax Rates for Low- and Moderate-Income Workers," Oct. 23, 2013
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "Policymakers Often Overstate
Marginal Tax Rates for Lower-Income Workers and Gloss Over Tough
Trade-Offs in Reducing Them," Dec. 3, 2014
Email interview with LaDonna Pavetti, vice president, Family Income
Support at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Jan. 8, 2015
Eugene Steuerle, Institute Fellow and Richard B. Fisher Chair at the Urban Institute, Jan. 12, 2015
THE 114th U.S. Congress is in session and already the gop / tea-baggers and third way democrats are maneuvering legislation and regulations in favor of the 1% and corporate America while manipulating public opinion to believe Progressives and moderate republicans are the enemies of the state. Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA reminds us what the role of Congress should be. How long will it be before the nation realizes the truth about the the majority of the gop, the tea-baggers and third way democrats? Will it take another recession? God help us all!!!!
I am a sinner and a saint, all people of faith are. And so some judge me as a real sinner and hypocrite and I confess they are right and I am. But I also ask why they are judging me, is it out of love, or self-righteousness or an attempt to justify their decision not to believe? And I also have to ask, do you only see my faults and failings? Don't you ever see my attempts to be good, to practice my faith as God, as Jesus commands? I will try to do better. This from +Sojourners .....
As you may
know by now, I’m starting a new project in which I try for a year to
really, seriously understand what it means to follow Jesus in western,
post-industrial 21st century society. What does that look like? Do any
of us actually do it? And to what degree, seriously, are we supposed to
actually be like Jesus, as opposed to finding our own way to walk a more
Christ-like path on our current context?
My biggest concern at the
moment is that though a lot of us claim to “be Christians,” or even to
follow Jesus, a lot of us don’t spend much intentional time trying to
figure out what that means and what it looks like in daily life. We try
not to be too crappy to other people, try not to kill, steal, adulterate
(is that even a word?) or worship graven images. We try to love, and to
accept love — though we still hurt each other. A lot. The world is
messed up and so far from realizing the fully kingdom-inspired image of
wholeness and reconciliation to which God invites us.
And
at least in my theological world, that’s on us, not God. I believe,
with all of my being, that the audacious vision of God’s kingdom, here
and now, isn’t something we sit around and pray for God to make real for
us. Like Jesus said, we can (and should) collectively do greater things
than even he did. When people experienced healing in his presence, he
never said, “Hey, I did that!” Rather, he always told them that it was
their own faith that made them well.
That’s pretty amazing to consider. And inspiring. And terrifying.
So here I am, not so much trying to be Jesus,
but trying to at least follow his life, teaching, and example better.
And in taking my own personal inventory, I can see that I pretty much
suck at it. That doesn’t mean I’m giving up, but it’s clear I have
plenty of work to do. Here are five examples:
I like stuff. I
was raised in culture in which the very economy depended on my affinity
for stuff. I mean, what did George W. Bush tell us to do to help us
heal from 9/11? Go shopping, of course! I try to break the habit, but
dammit if stuff isn’t awesome, shiny, fun, and freaking everywhere.
Maybe I need to work the twelve steps for my stuff addiction. Maybe we
all do.
I want people to like me. Especially
in the public sphere, my career more or less depends on it. I post a
new article and watch with either a sense of self-satisfaction or dread
as the page-views roll in or stall out at a trickle. I get the sales
reports form my publishers and see my own self worth in the midst of the
numbers. My ego is so wrapped up in my identity — more specifically,
what I do — that it’s hard for me to talk about who I am without jumping
to my work.
I’m critical of others. I’m
a real pro at finding fault in other people. Some psychologists
suggests (and yes, I dropped out of my PhD in psych, thank you) that
such a critical view of the outside world is simply an obfuscation to
keep us from dealing with our own lingering sense of a lack of worth.
But the thing is, I’m onto the fact that, lots of days, I can be a real
asshole. Maybe for me, it’s more about assuring myself that everyone
else is nearly the same degree of asshole as I am. The thing is, when I
lean on this kind of justification, nothing changes. If our sense of
worth hinges on comparisons, we’re all screwed.
I let fear dictate my actions. It’s
funny to me when people write to me about my writing being vulnerable,
brave, or the like, because to me, it’s proof positive that so much of
my life is simply about trying to reconcile fear and keep it in some
sort of healthy context. By naming it, my hope is that it loses some of
its power. But it keeps coming back, and more often than not, it weaves
its way into my consciousness like some kind of virus, infecting my
judgment and my perspective. If, as Paul notes, we availed ourself to a
more perfect love, there would be no room for fear. Clearly got to keep
that one on my to-do list.
I’m willful. One
of Jesus’ most powerful phrases ever uttered, at least for me, was,
“Not my will, but yours, God, be done.” It’s one thing to submit your
own will to something bigger than yourself under normal circumstances —
it’s entirely another to do it when you’re facing death. It’s not that I
think that we’re all called to be martyrs for our faith. Hardly. But if
we can’t let go of control and place our own agenda and idea of how
things should be in the back seat on the basic, day-to-day stuff, how
can we possibly do it when things get really serious? It’s a little
trickier for me, since I’m not sure I’m on the “God has a consciousness
and will like human beings” train, but I do know, when I take time to
contemplate, what is for the Greater Good. And more often than not, I
want to get there, but only if I can filter it through my own personal
agenda first.
If I achieve nothing more
than working intently on these five things in the coming year, I’m
pretty sure I’ll be a great deal closer to the Jesus path I’m talking
about than I am now. Of course, considering this all is being documented
here on a public blog, on our podcast, and ultimately in a book, it may
be a bit of a set-up.
Dammit, there I go, putting things through my own personal agenda-filter again. Starting again, again…
Christian Piatt is
the creator and editor of BANNED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BIBLE and BANNED
QUESTIONS ABOUT JESUS. He co-created and co-edits the “WTF: Where’s the
Faith?” young adult series with Chalice Press, and he has a memoir on
faith, family and parenting called PREGMANCY: A Dad, a Little Dude and a
Due Date.
HERE's Jim Wallis' 10 New Year's resolutions for 2015. There are life lessons in these for people of all faiths and good people everywhere. We can do better, I must do better this year. From +Sojourners .....
Some
people don’t like the idea of New Year’s resolutions, but I do. We often
only use the word in the context of this season, but “resolution” is a
nuanced noun. Some of its definitions include:
A new day. Image courtesy eelnosiva/shutterstock.com
A firm decision to do or not to do something — see: intention, resolve, plan, commitment, pledge.
The quality of being determined or resolute —
see: determination, purpose, steadfastness, perseverance,tenacity,
tenaciousness, staying power, dedication, commitment, stubbornness,
boldness, spiritedness, bravery, courage, pluck, grit.
The action of solving a problem, dispute, or contentious matter — solution to, settlement of, conclusion to, “the peaceful resolution of all disputes.”
In
a world of seemingly endless conflicts, I sure like the sound of that.
We need more of all of these qualities just now. All three meanings of
resolution are wonderfully attractive to me — and timely for this brand
new year. So here are my 10 resolutions for this 2015:
1. Love God. We
can’t really love anyone if we don’t spend time with them. Take the
time this year to be quiet and listen to God in prayer. My dad’s old
Bible, which I got to keep when he died, is full of multi-colored notes
underlining the text, from his reading of it literally every day — every
day for me too this year.
2. Extend who our neighbors are; whom we are also called to love. When
Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbor,?” he told people to reach beyond
themselves, their natural groups, and their regular boundaries to the
neighbors who were further away from them, especially to those who are
in most trouble. My mother’s two instructions to us were always clear:
If there is a kid on the playground that nobody else is playing with,
you play with them. And if there is a bully picking on other kids, you
stand up to him. Okay, Mom.
3. Love hardest those who are the closest. The
relationships that will bring us most joy and sorrow are inside our
inner circle that we are most responsible for. Our wives, husbands,
partners; dearest friends; and, especially, our children must be the
first priority, the first claim on our lives and time. Whoever or
whatever else we are or will ever be — to them we are really only dad or
mom.
4. Build racial bridges. We
are at a crisis point — and a point of great opportunity to heal wounds
and move racial justice forward. It’s time to help lead America into
its diverse and changing-demographic future.
5. Always Ask, “What does this mean for the poor and vulnerable?” What
happens to these members of society is a chief criterion for God’s
judgment on a nation’s righteousness and our own integrity. So that must
be the first question of every public policy debate this year, and we
must be the ones to raise it.
6. Support and empower women and girls. This
half of God’s children not only bears the brunt of the world’s
injustice and conflicts, but is absolutely essential to their
resolutions. The most repressive hierarchies fear the education of girls
above all else.
7. Stand up for the reality of climate change. If
we say we love God and care for God’s creation, it is time to raise our
voices over the crisis of climate change. It’s time to start turning
around, and we must begin to do that.
8. Question every act of war. Peacemaking
is not finding another war to win, but getting underneath the conflicts
to their causes. We must question each escalation of war and continue
to ask our leaders why this keeps happening.
9. Practice presence. Spend
less time with screens and more with books, less time with complaining
and more with solving, less time with arguing and more with listening,
less time with shopping and more time with being thankful, less time
with worrying and more with exercising, less time obsessing about food
and more time eating well, less time planning and more time doing, less
time scheduling and more time living one day at a time.
10. Embrace hope and joy. Try
to replace disappointment and despair with hope — not as a feeling but
as a decision. Try to replace anxiety with joy — which means to be open
to all the surprises, blessings, and gifts that we can’t control but are
offered by God and the people God surrounds us with, if we are paying
attention.
My 11th resolution is for all those who have read this or anything else Sojourners has offered in 2014.
I humbly but sincerely ask you to remember Sojourners’ work and to support our mission in 2015. Pleasepledge the cost of a cup of coffee, or a meal, or a shopping trip or a tithe each month; or make a 2015 year’s gift promise of your resources or legacy to Sojourners; or make another decision of support whose aim, is to help Sojourners to plan its purposeful mission with bravery, boldness, and courage for another year and for years to come. For 2015, we ask for your commitment to help us to fulfill our calling.
May God bless us every one.
Make your commitment to Sojourners’ work in 2015 by clicking here.
Jim Wallisis
president of Sojourners. His book,The (Un)Common Good: How the Gospel
Brings Hope to a World Divided, the updated and revised paperback
version of On God’s Side, is available now. Follow Jim on
Twitter @JimWallis. Sandi Villarreal is Web Editor & Chief Digital Officer for Sojourners. You can follow her on Twitter @Sandi.
