Afghanistan Weekly Digest: David Cameron. Fighting Shifts. Soldiers. 7JUL11

UPDATES on the war in Afghanistan and the struggle to end this war and bring our troops home, from Sojourners....

[Editors' note: As part of Sojourners' campaign to end the war in Afghanistan, we will run a weekly Afghanistan news digest to educate our readers about the latest news and developments related to the war, the U.S. military's strategy, and the people impacted by our decisions. Read more about our campaign at www.sojo.net/afghanistan.]
http://blog.sojo.net/2011/07/07/afghanistan-weekly-digest-david-cameron-fighting-shifts-soldiers/ 

• Army program works to make soldiers fit in body and mind: “The Army, burdened by almost a decade of war and beset by increases in suicides, substance abuse and combat stress, embarked on the controversial $125 million project to instill psychological strength in soldiers the same way it teaches physical fitness.”

• David Cameron appeals to Taliban to cease fighting in Afghanistan: “Prime minister expresses sadness about latest British casualty in Afghanistan, saying it shows the ‘high price’ being paid to stabilise the country.”

• Elaborate ruse behind vast Kabul Bank fraud: “The top two officials of Kabul Bank used fake names, forged documents, fictitious companies and secret records as part of an elaborate ruse to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to shareholders and top Afghan officials, according to newly obtained documents and interviews.”

• Let’s not linger in Afghanistan: “We commend the president for sticking to the July date he had outlined for beginning the withdrawal. However, his plan would not remove all regular combat troops until 2014. We believe the United States is capable of achieving this goal by the end of 2012.”

• Fighting shifts to Afghanistan’s mountainous east: Listen to this story on NPR. “The American-led fight in Afghanistan is changing. The toughest fighting is shifting from the south — Helmand and Kandahar provinces — to the east. There, high, craggy mountains offer shelter to Taliban fighters.”

Hannah Lythe is policy and outreach associate at Sojourners.

The Debt Ceiling Play: My 'CliffsNotes' Version from SOJOURNERS 7JUL11

AS far as I am concerned the concept of competing moral visions mentioned in this article from Sojourners is actually a competition between morality and immorality, between good and evil. Accuse me of being judgmental, maybe I am guilty, but I am tired of our government doing everything to protect the rich and powerful individuals and corporations and ignoring and neglecting the poor, the working class, the middle class, widows, orphans, homeless, sick, students, the needy, the least among us. The greed, the open lust for more wealth and power by those who already have more than they need disgust me, and I am more disgusted by the political whores who willingly do the bidding for the rich and corporate America and am really disgusted by those quisling politicians who know what they should do but don't have the courage to take a stand for what is right. From Sojourners.......    
Our country is in the midst of a clash between two competing moral visions. It is not, as we have known in recent history, a traditional fight between Republicans and Democrats. It is a conflict between those who believe in the common good and those who believe individual good is the only good. While a biblical worldview informs Christians that they should be wary of the rich and defend the poor, a competing ideology says that wealth is equivalent to righteousness and God’s blessing. It is a morality play in which Washington, D.C. is the stage, politicians are actors, lobbyists are directors, the "debt ceiling" is the conflict, and we are the audience who will pay the cost of the production, whether we enjoyed it or not.
All the actors know that the scene will end with the debt ceiling raised, but now the question is, who will pay the price?
To help you follow the play, here is my "CliffsNotes" version:
1. The United States has the best credit rating in the world, for now. For years the safest investment in the world has been buying U.S. debt. But there is a legal limit on how much we can borrow, and we are about to max out. What’s driving our deficits? If you look at the drivers of the budget deficit from 2009 to 2019, you’ll see that there is a sharp increase from recovery measures for a few years. But by 2019, more than half of the deficit will be from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the tax cuts enacted under President Bush and extended under President Obama.
2. What had been a routine procedure is now center stage. Unless you were paying very close attention, you probably didn’t hear about the seven times the debt ceiling was raised under President Bush and 17 times under President Reagan. But don’t think using the debt ceiling as a partisan tool is anything new. These votes often fall along partisan lines, and President [then Senator] Obama voted against raising the debt ceiling under President Bush.
3. Yes, a default would be disastrous. None of the main characters is even considering it. It could set off a row of economic dominoes that could result in more than 600,000 jobs lost, a lot more debt than we have right now, and at a significantly higher interest rate. President Reagan put it like this: “Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinksmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar.” Not raising the federal debt limit isn't like cutting up your credit card. It's like cutting up your credit card bill. We have a long-term spending problem, but that doesn't mean we can stick our heads in the sand. And the most serious economists, from both parties, say that spending cuts alone cannot solve our deficit problem. Part of the solution has to be increasing revenues. Tax revenues are the lowest they have been in recent history. In 1980, federal revenue was around 19 percent of the GDP; in 1990 it was a little over 18 percent; in 2000 it was over 20 percent; and in 2010 it was just over 14 percent of GDP. Taxes, especially on the wealthy, are relatively low (historically and internationally) and need to be raised.
4. It looks like everyone is about to lose their balance. Some analysts thought a fair approach to facing our debt would be to cut spending $1 for every $1 in revenue raised. The Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan the promoted a 3-to-1 ratio of spending cuts to revenue, and then the president offered a plan in the same ballpark. Now it is being reported that Republicans aren’t interested in a deal that would give a 5-to-1 spending cuts-to-revenue ratio. It’s possible that they will refuse any revenue increases, including closing corporate tax loopholes and subsidies that allow some corporations to pay no taxes at all.
This play would be amusing to watch if it was just on a stage. Instead, these decisions will have real-world consequences. Should we end farm subsidy checks to millionaires in Manhattan, or baby formula rebates for new mothers? Should we end mortgage deductions for second homes, or house the homeless? Should we end a military tank program that no longer has use, or stop providing malaria bed nets for children?
The actors who are center-stage right now would have the audience believe that it is all much more complicated than that. The directors behind the scenes would like us to stay out of the way of the plot and leave it to them. But as a Christian, I can’t sit quietly by while the audience of the poor watch silently and suffer.
Jim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery, and CEO of Sojourners. He blogs at www.godspolitics.com. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

Stunning, There are breaking news reports that President Obama is offering to cut Social Security from MOVEON.ORG 7JUL11

I called and you should too, because the only changes that should be made to Social Security are removing the cap on the income subject to the tax (right now it is set at $106000.00) and means testing for people making over $250000.00. Medicare can not be cut, instead the government must address the rising cost of Medicare by passing legislation allowing the government to negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical companies to cut Medicare cost. There is no way Social Security and Medicare can be cut, so the poor, elderly, retired, disabled, the working and middle classes should be forced to pay while the rich and corporate America continue to receive their tax breaks and subsidies. CALL and tell the President to hold the line on Social Security and Medicare.

The news just hit that President Obama may be offering cuts to Social Security to get a debt deal with Republicans. Can you call the White House and tell President Obama: "No deal where seniors pay—No deal where the rich don't"? The White House: (202) 456-1111 Report Your Call!

There are breaking news reports that President Obama is offering to cut Social Security to convince Republicans to keep the country from defaulting on its debts.¹ After months of affirming that Social Security doesn't add to the deficit,² and ruling out benefit cuts in the State of the Union,³ the White House's reversal is stunning.

Eight key Democrat and Republican leaders are coming to the White House today to address the crisis over our country's looming default.

Republicans are dominating this negotiation, because their tea party supporters are demanding that they take a hard line. If we want the president and the Democratic leadership to have any leverage in these negotiations, we have to do the same.

We have to make it absolutely clear that a deficit reduction deal that puts the primary burden on seniors and the middle class is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to the very people who vote for Democrats, donate, volunteer, and knock on door after door to get them elected.

Call right now to flood the White House with calls. Tell the president: No deal where seniors pay. No deal where the rich and corporations don't.

The White House: (202) 456-1111

Then, please report your call by clicking here.

The head of Strengthen Social Security, a coalition of 300 groups—including MoveOn—said this today:

If true, President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits represents a betrayal of America's seniors, people with disabilities and their families... Money would be ripped out of the pockets of millions of vulnerable Americans. Women, low-income and very old retirees would be hit hardest.⁴

He's not alone. Polls clearly show that the American people want the rich to pay their fair share to reduce our deficit, and want Medicare and Social Security protected.⁵

Yet, a radical minority bent on doling out more tax breaks for the rich while slashing our government beyond recognition has taken over our politics. They've captured the Republicans, and they are trying to run over the Democratic leaders that the majority of Americans elected.

We have to change that. It's time for the reasonable majority to outdo and outflank the radical minority. That starts with your phone call.

Please pick up the phone now and let the president know that enough is enough when it comes to cuts to seniors and everyday Americans. It's time for the rich and America's corporations to do their part.

The White House: (202) 456-1111

Then, please report your call by clicking here.

Thanks for all you do.

–Justin, Adam Q., Elena, Stephen, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "In Debt Talks, Obama Offers Social Security Cuts," The Washington Post, July 6, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=210871&id=28657-17549061-oNEpDPx&t=4

2. "Top Obama Economic Aide: Social Security Reform Not A Part Of Discussion On Fiscal Future," Huffington Post, February 22, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=210876&id=28657-17549061-oNEpDPx&t=5

3. "Remarks by the President in State of Union Address," The White House, January 25, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=210877&id=28657-17549061-oNEpDPx&t=6

4. "Reports of Obama Plan to Cut Social Security, if True, Represent a Betrayal to America's Seniors and Families, Charges Leader of Coalition Representing 300 Organizations," Strengthen Social Security, July 7, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=210880&id=28657-17549061-oNEpDPx&t=7

4. "Poll: To Reduce Deficit, Most Americans Say Tax The Rich More", CBS News, January 3, 2011
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=210872&id=28657-17549061-oNEpDPx&t=8

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

Orrin Hatch: The 'Poor' Should Do More To Shrink Debt, Not The Rich (VIDEO) 7JUL11

MORE Mormon compassion from sen ornery hatch......is this lack of compassion, this lack of concern for those less fortunate, this support of greed and lust for more wealth and power what the Book of Mormon teaches? Is it sen ornery???? We know what Jesus Christ had to say about wealth, greed, power and what our attitude about workers, the poor, the least among us should be, but either sen ornery is giving us a new interpretation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon or he is ignoring the tenants of his faith and Christianity......From HuffPost.....

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) voted against beginning debate on a measure that would have the Senate declare the rich should share the pain of debt reduction Thursday, a day after arguing that it's the poor and middle class who need to do more.
"I hear how they're so caring for the poor and so forth," Hatch said in remarks on the Senate floor Wednesday, in reference to Democrats. "The poor need jobs! And they also need to share some of the responsibility."
Hatch's comments were aimed at a motion that passed 74 to 22 to start debating a non-binding resolution that says millionaires and billionaires should play a more meaningful role in reducing the nation's debt.
Just one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), voted against having the debate. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who had previously called the resolution "rather pathetic," nevertheless voted to move ahead on it.
But it was Hatch whose remarks Wednesday raised the idea that the wealthy are already doing too much, even as the nation's effective tax rates are at modern lows since the Bush administration slashed rates in 2001 and 2003. In his view, it seems, the middle class and poor should be picking up the slack.
"The top 1 percent of the so-called wealthy pay 38 percent of all income tax. The top 10 percent are paying 70 percent of all income tax," Hatch said. "The top 50 percent pay somewhere near 98 percent of all income taxes. 51 percent don't pay anything," Hatch said, suggesting the payroll taxes that the poor and middle classes pay towards Social Security yields them an especially generous benefit.
"Democrats say they [the 51 percent] pay payroll taxes. Well, everybody does that because that's Social Security. They pay about one-third of what they're going to take out over the years in social security," Hatch railed. "Obamacare -- a family of four earning over $80,000 a year -- gets subsidies. Think about that. That's what we call the poor?"

Hatch hedged that the the poorest of the poor shouldn't have to pay taxes. But he was clear that people who qualify for subsidies because they can't afford things like health care should dig deeper.
"Now, we don't want the really poor people who are in poverty to have to pay income taxes," he said. "But 51% of all households. And that's going up, by the way, because of our friend down in the White House and his allies."

Obama: I'm Sure Boehner 'Will See The Light' On Infrastructure Bill 7JUL11

THE gop / tea-bagger hypocrisy goes on and on......government spending is waste unless it is in their districts. Pres Obama and the Democrats need to call them out on this, and to ask them where is all the private investment and where are all the new jobs extending the bush era tax cuts and keeping all the tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate America were supposed to bring???? Pres Obama lost a golden opportunity to slam this home to the American public when Rep john boehner tweeted his question "Where are all the jobs?" Pres Obama's answer should have been "Ask all the wealthy, the wall street financiers and corporate America what they have done with their tax break extension". From HuffPost...
WASHINGTON -- Recent changes in rhetoric from Republicans on Capitol Hill have provided a sliver of hope about the prospects of getting an infrastructure bill through Congress.
Several freshmen House Republicans have either publicly stated or privately pushed for enhanced federal spending in their home districts. The most recent revelation came when Rep. Bobby Schilling (R-Ill.) told a town hall last week that the president's stimulus package -- which he had criticized on the road to election -- would have been better had it "taken a lot bigger chunk of that money and put it into infrastructure."
It was a relatively rare acknowledgment from a GOP member that targeted spending on, say, roads and bridge repair, has a positive economic impact. But it's exactly the type of message that some Republican freshmen have been sending privately.
Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) petitioned the Department of Transportation, for instance, to spend $13 million for a port project in his home district. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) asked the department for $4.365 million for airport runway repairs for his district. Rep. Steven Southerland (R-Fla.) wrote a letter to the department encouraging it to guarantee a loan for the company Boldini, S.A. to build offshore supply vessels at a shipyard in Panama City, Fla. Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) pressed the department to send funds for high-speed rail construction to New York after they had been rejected by Gov. Rick Scott of Florida.
All of these efforts to secure funds were revealed after The Huffington Post obtained the records of communications between freshmen members and the Office of the Secretary at the Department of Transportation through a Freedom of Information Act request. Several offices did not return requests for comment. Those that did -- Fincher's and Johnson's -- both stressed that investments in these specific infrastructure projects were not the same type of wasteful spending that they had wailed against for many months.
"There’s a difference between smart federal spending and the reckless, irresponsible waste of tax dollars the American people are fed up with," said Rep. Johnson's spokeswoman Jessica Towhey.
"Congressman Fincher does support this project," said his spokeswoman Sara Sendek. "He believes government does play a role in creating an environment that attracts private investment and job growth."
Taken individually, one could dismiss these requests as the politically, self-interested doings of lawmakers hoping to hold their seats. Together, however, they demonstrate an under-reported bit of political will to put a package of infrastructure spending together.
"I do think it is an area where there is popularity among both parties," said one top Democratic Senate aide. "It is definitely a candidate for something we'd consider [after the debt ceiling debate]."
Requests for reaction from Republican congressional leadership were not immediately returned. That said, one of the biggest GOP-backing interest groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has been supportive of infrastructure spending. And President Obama, in his twitter town hall event on Wednesday, pitched the topic yet again.
"For us to move forward on a major infrastructure initiative where we are putting people to work right now including construction workers … to put them to work rebuilding America at a time when interest rates are very low, contractors are looking for work, and the need is there, that is something that could make a huge positive impact on the economy overall," Obama said. "And it is an example of making an investment now that ends up having huge payoffs down the road."
"We haven't gotten the cooperation I would like to see [from Republicans]," he added. "But I'm just going to keep on trying and eventually, I'm sure the Speaker will see the light."
The devil will end up in the details. And even though there appears to be a greater appetite to do something on the infrastructure front, it's unlikely that even with a generous Republican caucus lawmakers will pass a bill that meets the country's needs. There is, currently, a service transportation bill making its way through Congress that deals with basic repairs to roads and bridges.
In terms of finding the type of funding needed for comprehensive modernization, "I'm not holding my breath," said the Senate aide.
"They can't get anything through and the stuff we are hearing on infrastructure is small potatoes," concurred a top labor official. "It is not anything we need to deal with our $2 trillion infrastructure deficit."

The Republican Spectrum of Ignorance from HUFFPOST 6JUL11

WELL SAID! From HuffPost.....

Republicans and conservatives make it really, really difficult for us to avoid focusing on their lapses in intelligence. And with a conga-line of top shelf Republicans front and center for the 2012 presidential nomination, we're being treated to more examples of nitwittery from these people.
In the last six or seven months alone, there are enough examples of Republicans botching very basic ideas and facts to fill volumes of "Bushism" style novelty calendars.
Sarah Palin, the matriarch of Republican idiocy, didn't just botch the Paul Revere story. Among a variety of other gaffes on Twitter ("cackle of rads?") and elsewhere, she has repeatedly botched the First Amendment suggesting it protects radio show hosts and others from offended citizens. Both John Boehner and Herman Cain have confused the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. Eric Cantor tried to pass a bill that would somehow magically become law with just a House vote, and this magical law would inexplicably force a separate bill to also magically become law without a Senate vote, a conference committee or a presidential signature. Speaking of lawmaking, Herman Cain wants bills that are three pages or less -- presumably with cartoony illustrations by Richard Scarry. Michele Bachmann thinks John Quincy Adams is a founding father and mistakenly linked her campaign with creepy clown/killer John Wayne Gacy. The list goes on and on.
That's not to say all modern conservatives are stupid. I simply don't subscribe to the crowd-pleasing notion that they're idiots.
However, there's a spectrum of anti-intellectualism on the right, and that's a fact. The Republican Spectrum of Ignorance runs the gamut from "genuinely smart but wrong" on one extreme to "genuinely stupid" on the other with various points in between. (The categories can be overlapped, Venn Diagram style, and applied to specific conservative players.)
The categories:
Genuinely Smart but Wrong. These are modern conservatives who are, as the category title suggests, very well-educated and bright, and therefore an endangered species. They can construct coherent thoughts and they try to be intellectually honest in constructing their arguments. But where they fall short is their adherence to ideology. Despite, for example, generally agreed-upon economic arguments about stimulating job creation, they'll insist that tax cuts and spending cuts that impact the middle and working classes are the only solution even though tax cuts do not stimulate job or economic growth, and spending cuts actually make things worse.
Deliberately Ignorant. This brand of conservative exploits the idea that voters want leaders who remind them of themselves -- someone they can have a beer with -- so they deliberately act like slack-jawed yokels at every opportunity. But just below the surface, they're very clever and calculating. Irrespective of political affiliation, we shouldn't want leaders who are just like us, or, for that matter, a random shit-kicker at the bar. We ought to instinctively demand leaders who are better, smarter and more disciplined -- times a thousand. But Republican voters disagree. And so they get these phony-baloney hacks posing as ordinary yickadoos.
Un- or Miseducated. These conservatives are often the ones who botch general knowledge trivia and historical facts, or who don't understand how basic democracy works. I've coined the term "miseducated" here to encompass politicians like Michele Bachmann who, while she studied tax law at William & Mary, obviously missed out on proper history classes during her education. They believe that secession is somehow a noble pursuit despite the fact that 600,000 Americans were killed the last time it was attempted. They don't get it because they never learned it -- or they mislearned it. George W. Bush had extensive schooling but didn't really study because he didn't have to. His family name carried him through his higher education.
Incompetent and Incapable. George W. Bush and Sarah Palin also fit squarely in this category of conservative anti-intellectualism. While Palin, for example, might have been given information by her advisers about the role of the vice president or tidbits about Paul Revere and bell-ringing of some sort, she utterly scrambled the re-telling of that information, which exposed her general incompetence. If you're unable to capably regurgitate information, you really have no place in a role that's almost entirely dependent upon communicating ideas. And if you can't communicate ideas, there's even less of a chance you'll be able to come up with passable ideas of your own, making you increasingly susceptible to the ambitions and political machinations of your advisers.
Genuinely Stupid. At the far end of the spectrum, this category speaks for itself. These Republicans fortuitously stumbled their way into elected office or the news media due to their congeniality or money or both despite being dumber than a sack of Jell-o.
The wild card category is, simply put, Crazy. Going back to Michele Bachmann, I don't think she's stupid. I think she's crazy. Not in the clinical sense (which is her own business), but specifically with regards to her radical ideas blended together with her miseducation -- a concoction that makes her so far removed from even the fringes of the mainstream that I can't believe she's actually being taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
So it stands to reason that a massive assault against our system of public education has been a priority of modern conservatism during this era of incomprehensible austerity.
For Republicans, education and intellectualism is the enemy of their wafer-thin bumper-sticker marketing strategy, and so denying people an affordable education has become a matter of survival for the Republican Party. An uninformed voter can be manipulated by sloganeering and trickery. A smarter voter is more likely to see through shallow appeals to fear and transparently deceptive marketing schemes.
On another level, Republicans insist the federal government should stay out of the business of education (considering the Republican effort to privatize education, "business" was used here intentionally) and leave it up to the states, yet Republicans nationwide are slashing education budgets at the state level. Pennsylvania's Republican governor Tom Corbett proposed cutting $825 million from the state's higher education budget. Florida's Republican governor (and Middle Earth gangrel creature) Rick Scott proposed $1.75 billion in cuts to K-12. Chris Christie cut the New Jersey education budget by $812 million, while protecting tax rates for the super rich. Fortunately, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled the cuts to be unconstitutional.
Progressive talk radio host Thom Hartmann reported on the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling in this video. While I'm here, it's worth noting that Hartmann is a phenomenon. A Renaissance man of the highest order and a personality who conservatives would do well to pay attention to. As the host of the most popular nationally syndicated liberal radio show, and the host of a daily TV show, Hartmann, much like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, possesses a killer mixture of both passion and stone cold wonk, informed by a strong academic background. And, unlike many Republican media personalities, Hartmann treats conservatives directly and fairly on his show, even though he routinely (and politely) shreds their myopia by employing a wicked sharp, encyclopedic grasp of history, facts and reality. I don't hear any Republicans doing the same, and I'm not holding my breath. Instead, on the right, we most often tend to hear repackaged fiction torn from the pages of modern conservatism's answer to L. Ron Hubbard, the atheist fiction author and socialized Medicare recipient Ayn Rand, who is worshipped by everyone from Rand Paul (named after Ayn Rand) to Alan Greenspan to Paul Ryan and the bulk of the tea party.
There are very obvious solutions to both increasing funds for public education as well as improving it. Rather than the trendy move towards right-leaning reforms proposed by Michelle Rhee or "Rhee-form" (get it?) it makes better sense to pursue reforms proposed by education specialists like Steve Edwards. Edwards' plan includes increased emphasis on developing leadership skills and de-emphasizing both testing and conformity. But primarily, Edwards suggests tailoring reforms to specific community needs, and to subsequently adjust those reforms as the community demographics shift, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach rigidly foisted upon both city and suburban schools. As the principal of East Hartford High School in East Hartford, Connecticut, Edwards reforms significantly improved graduation rates, reduced suspensions and drop-outs, and even reduced the number of fights by half. A breath of fresh air to say the least. So what are we waiting for?
Progressives and Democrats need to shout the following question into every microphone available: Who is best able to contribute to deficit reduction: the super rich or our embattled public school system? The single most effective antidote to our national decline is education. It stimulates the economy over the long run, it encourages innovation, it resurrects the American dream and the middle class and, most importantly, it encourages informed civic participation. Clearly an array of benefits the Republicans and modern conservatives are merrily against as they undermine education in lieu of tax cuts for Koch Brothers and Donald Trump.
The Republicans are welcome to act like idiots as a means of pandering to dumbstupids. Just leave the rest of us alone. America needs more smarties, and I don't think we can afford to wait for the right-wing to catch up to speed.
Listen to the Bubble Genius Bob Cesca Show on iTunes.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go

What Does the Bible Actually Say About Marriage? from HuffPost 7JUL11

A very interesting article in HuffPost, brings up things I have never really thought about before.....
When you attend a wedding at church, what passages of Scripture do you expect to hear? Congregations occasionally invite me to speak on the current same-sex marriage debates, and I ask them this question. Their answers are remarkably consistent.
Someone invariably mentions 1 Corinthians 13, the famous "Love Chapter." Love is patient, love is kind, love never insists on its own way and so forth. Wonderful advice for marriage, but Paul was not talking about marriage. He was addressing a church fight: the believers in Corinth had split into factions and were competing for prestige and influence. We see echoes of this conflict throughout the letter, but especially in chapters 12 and 14, which surround this passage.
Others call out, "Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God" (Ruth 1:16; NRSV). Another moving passage, but it's certainly not about marriage. Ruth addresses this moving speech to her mother-in-law Naomi.
The second creation story in Genesis comes up: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genisis 2:24). This passage is certainly appropriate to marriage, as it reflects the level of intimacy and commitment that distinguishes marriage from other relationships. Jesus quotes this passage, too, but he isn't exactly discussing marriage. Instead, his topic is divorce (Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8). When ministers read the Gospel passages at weddings, as they often do, the message seems a little off. I'd rather not hear about divorce at a wedding.
One other passage frequently surfaces in weddings but rarely in mainline Protestant churches, the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodists and United Church of Christ congregations that invite me to speak. Ephesians 5:22-33 commands wives to obey their husbands and husbands to love their wives. Conservative Christians may try to explain away the offense of this passage, but there's no escaping its ugly reality. Ephesians calls wives to submit to their husbands just as children must obey their parents and slaves must obey their masters. See the larger context, Ephesians 5:21-6:9.
Not a Lot to Say
The point is, Christian weddings rarely feature passages that directly relate to marriage. Only one passage, Genesis 2:24, seems especially relevant, while other passages require us to bend their content to our desire to hear a good word about marriage. Things are so bad that the worship books for many denominations turn to John 2:11, where Jesus turns water into wine at a wedding feast, to claim that Jesus blessed marriage. My church, the United Church of Christ, has developed a new wedding liturgy, but it retains this common formula: "As this couple give themselves to each other today, we remember that at Cana in Galilee our Savior Jesus Christ made the wedding feast a sign of God's reign of love."
So we know Jesus blessed marriage because he attended a wedding? That's the best we can do? No wonder it's common for couples to struggle over the choice of Scripture for their wedding ceremonies. The Bible just doesn't have much to say on the topic.
Let's Be Honest
Unfortunately, many Christians use the Bible to support their own prejudices and bigotry. They talk about "biblical family values" as if the Bible had a clear message on marriage and sexuality. Let's be clear: There's no such thing as "biblical family values" because the Bible does not speak to the topic clearly and consistently.
It's high time people came clean about how we use the Bible. When Christians try to resolve difficult ethical and theological matters, they typically appeal to the Gospels and Paul's letters as keys to the question. But what about marriage? Not only did Jesus choose not to marry, he encouraged his disciples to abandon household and domestic concerns in order to follow him (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:28-30; Luke 9:57-62). He even refers to those "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 19:10-13). Whatever that means, it's certainly not an endorsement of marriage. Paul likewise encourages male believers: "Do not seek a wife" (1 Corinthians 7:27, my translation) -- advice Paul took for himself. If neither Jesus nor Paul preferred marriage for their followers, why do some Christians maintain that the Bible enshrines 19th-century Victorian family values?
Let's not even go into some of the Bible's most chilling teachings regarding marriage, such as how a man's obligation to keep a new wife who displeases him on the wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:13-21), his obligation to marry a woman he has raped (Deuteronomy 22:28-30) or the unquestioned right of heroes like Abraham to exploit their slaves sexually. I wonder: Have the "biblical family values advocates" actually read their Bibles?
Christians will always turn to the Bible for guidance -- and we should. If the Bible does not promote a clear or redemptive teaching about slavery, that doesn't mean we have nothing to learn from Scripture about the topic. The same values that guide all our relationships apply to marriage: unselfish concern for the other; honesty, integrity and fidelity; and sacrificial -- but not victimized -- love. That's a high standard, far higher than a morality determined by anachronistic and restrictive rules that largely reflect our cultural biases. Rules make up the lowest common denominator for morality. Love, as Paul said, never finds an end.

Obama Aide On Social Security Cut Story: It 'Overshoots The Runway' 7JUL11

SOCIAL SECURITY CAN NOT BE PART OF THE BUDGET CEILING NEGOTIATIONS, THE PROGRAM IS NOT PART OF THE FEDERAL DEBT PROBLEM! President Obama and the Democratic Party will find themselves in dire straits if they dare give in to the greed of the gop and tea-baggers and raise the retirement age or cut benefits to the poor, working class and middle class. Means testing for Social Security is acceptable only if applied to the wealthy who also receive Social Security. The only change in funding of the program that should be implemented is lifting the cap on Social Security taxes on the wealthy so all income is subject to the tax. From HuffPost.....
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is pushing back against a Wednesday night report that the president is prepared to offer cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to raise the debt ceiling.
"The story overshoots the runway," said a senior administration official. "The President said in the State of the Union that he wanted a bipartisan process to strengthen Social Security in a balanced way that preserves the promise of the program and doesn't slash benefits."
"While it is definitely not a driver of the deficit," the official added, "it does need to be strengthened."
The response, sent via email to The Huffington Post, provides a measure of assurance to Democrats who were taken aback by the abrupt news, broken by the Washington Post, that Social Security reform was now on the debt-ceiling table. Still, the devil is in the details, and the idea of "strengthening" the entitlement program remains the vague standard for reform.
Making Social Security means tested, for instance, could be pitched as a way to improve the program's solvency, even if doing so would drastically undermine its founding purpose, as some experts warn.
There are also several smaller alterations that have been proposed. Last week, advocates expressed concern over news that lawmakers were considering changes to the way the government calculates the rate of growth for benefits people receive.
Confusing the debate even more are the political implications of putting Social Security or any other entitlement reform at the heart of debt-ceiling negotiations. Democrats believe they can use Republicans' votes for a Medicare voucher program earlier this spring as a potent political weapon. But by signing off on cuts of their own -- the thinking goes -- Democrats would lose any political advantage they've gained by saying they are protecting Medicare while the GOP is trying to fundamentally change or do away with the program.

Satchita from PLAYING FOR CHANGE

Hello Playing For Change Family,

Sending you love from the road with the PFC Band!! Today we are proud to release a new, original Song Around the World titled "Satchita." This is a featured video on our new CD/DVD, PFC 2, and it takes us on a musical journey from Brazil to India. Get ready to smile, dance and feel the love of the world uniting through the power of music. Please share this video with everyone you know, and together we will change the world one song and one heart at a time!!


One Love,
Mark

Check out our new Brazil t-shirts here!


Follow us on Facebook: facebook.com/PlayingForChange
Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/Playing4Change
Support the PFC Foundation: playingforchange.org
Photos from the road: flickr.com/playingforchange

July Newsletter: New Top 10 Lists from CHARITY NAVIGATOR JULY 2011

CHARITY NAVIGATOR is one of the best resources available for checking out charities to confirm they are legit and are using your donations wisely....here is their July 2011 newsletter.

.

July 2011 Newsletter   July Newsletter: New Top 10 Lists This month we've added these new Top 10 lists to our site: 10 Well Known Charities without Reviews 10 Highly Rated Health Charities with the Most New Reviews Charity Navigator named one of 20 Financial Innovations You Can't Afford to Ignore Kiplinger's Personal Finance selected Charity Navigator as a Money Management Innovation for "helping millions of people become philanthropists," putting us in the same category as Mint.com, TurboTax and Mobile Banking Apps. Read The Article Now Important Update! Exciting things are happening with CN 2.0! Thefirst ever major change in our rating system is about to go live and we’re making major headway on the third dimension—results reporting. Read all about it and find out how you can help. And to all of our wonderful supporters who have already responded, thank you! Updated/ New Charities Donors Choose, 4-stars Intrepid Museum Foundation, 4-stars Carolina Ballet, 3-stars Arthur Ashe Youth Tennis and Education, 0-stars Coalition Against Breast Cancer, Donor Advisory View the 602 Updated Charities and 12 Newly Added Charities   Write A Review to Help Identify Great - or Not So Great - Social Justice Charities Help other donors make smart choices about which Social Justice charities to support by sharing your personal experience. The 10 highly-rated Social Justice charities that get the most reviews during the month of July will be featured in Charity Navigator's August newsletter and in a special Top 10 list on our site. Write A Review Now My Charities See which of your charities were updated this month. Charity FAQ: How can I update our basic profile information (like our phone and mission statement) and learn about changes to Charity Navigator's rating system? Each charity’s official representative is able to suggest edits to the basic information, such as address and mission, shown on their rating page on our site. If you are the official representative, then log into the site and visit your charity’s rating page. There you will see an extra tab titled ‘edit profile.’ Use that to submit your changes. The analyst responsible for evaluating your charity will review your submission and either update your charity’s profile or contact you for additional information. If your organization does not yet have an approved representative, then you simply need to visit your charity’s rating page and click on the link at the bottom to become your charity’s official representative. Once you have been approved as your charity's registered representative, then you’ll have permission to make these simple edits, gain access to logos and receive important messages about changes to our rating system. Visit our site for more Frequently Asked Questions for donors and charities. In The News SmartMoney The Important Charities You're Ignoring. The Huffington Post The Nonprofit Outcomes Toolbox TIME Magazine Health Special: Cancer Visit our Press Room for more media coverage of Charity Navigator. Share Our Data Link to Charity Navigator Add the Charity Navigator Search Widget to Your Site Get the Charity Search API Display Featured Charities On Your Site Now Access Top 10 Feed Access Hot Topic Feed Several images in this newsletter were provided by Shutterstock.com. President’s Report On June 13th we co-hosted an event at the NYU Wagner School of Public Service called, “Managing to Outcomes”. Over 100 nonprofit professionals, funders and experts from the tri-state area attended the event, along with professors from around the country. We will be posting video from the event by early next month, along with slide presentations that went along with them. One of the presentations was a case study of our efforts to revamp our rating system. You can read an executive summary of the case study here. We thank both the Hewlett Foundation and Liquidnet for making this event possible through their generous financial support.. Read President's Full Report   Follow Ken's daily musings on Twitter @kenscommentary And follow his blog posts on Ken's Commentary including his most recent post, Managing to Outcomes Forum. Top 10 Lists 10 Slam-Dunk Charities 10 Super-Sized Charities 10 Celebrity-Related Charities See All Top 10 Lists Now Recent Blogs From One, to Two, to Three Dimensions and Beyond! Managing to Outcomes Forum Want A Meaningful Career? What Does $291 Billion Buy? Charitable Giving In 2010 Using Trained Volunteers This book has been written for YOU! Guess Who Is #5 On Kiplinger’s List of 20 Financial Innovations You Can’t Afford to Ignore IRS Cleans Up Its Nonprofit Roster --- 275,000 Small Groups Lose Nonprofit Status Tips, Tips and More Tips 3 Things To Check Before You Give Friday's Film Ken Berger's Upcoming Speaking Engagements InterAction's Annual Forum August 10-12, 2011 Washington, DC Social Solutions Annual Conference Sep 26, 2011 Baltimore, MD Join Us On: Subscribe to Ken's Commentary Subscribe to the Charity Navigator Blog   Tell Us How Charity Navigator Has Impacted Your Giving Donors have told us that our ratings influence their giving choices and charities have told us some amazing stories about substantial donations they've received from donors who have consulted our data. For example: "This site has changed the way I give, A LOT! I've learned to question and research the various charities I support. Now, no matter how creative the solicitors get, I'm confident that I have the real data I need to make much wiser decisions and make certain my donations are being used in the most helpful ways. I'm telling all of my friends and co workers about this site and how useful it is." "I receive many requests for donations but am not in the 1% of wealth in this country so cannot give to them all. I found Charity Navigator only recently and it has helped me decide to which charities to donate. My thanks and I've already contributed to Charity Navigator." Have you told us your story? We want to know how Charity Navigator has helped you be an informed donor or how it has helped your charity obtain funding. Write Us Now Review Us Now  CHARITYNAVIGATOR.ORG | contact us  ©2006 Charity Navigator

139 Harristown Rd, Suite 201 | Glen Rock, NJ 07452 US Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. EmailNow powered by Emma