The Bible Has a Liberal Bias

Just when I thought conservatives couldn't get any crazier, I read about some men who think the Bible needs editing, not just for accuracy, but because it's too liberal. They're the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. [...] Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.

Here's an example of the liberal bias they find problematic:

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Social justice=socialism? No wonder this Catholic writer said about their project: "Right wing dementia marches on apace." And conservative BeliefNet writer Rod Dreher had this opinion:

More seriously, the insane hubris of this really staggers the mind. These right-wing ideologues know better than the early church councils that canonized Scripture? They really think it's wise to force the word of God to conform to a 21st-century American idea of what constitutes conservatism? These jokers don't worship God. They worship ideology.

Sorry, Conservapedia guys, but Jesus was the ultimate liberal progressive revolutionary of all history. You can't change that - no matter how hard you try to rewrite the Bible into your own image.

Right-Wing Extremist Shapes Glenn Beck's Worldview

I wonder if the MI Chamber of Commerce knows this. According to TPM, a right-wing extremist heavily influences Glenn Beck. They point to a fascinating article in Salon which "reveals that a book by a Mormon "historian" deemed too extreme even by the modern conservative movement -- which argues that the U.S. constitution is based primarily on natural law -- has played a major role in Beck's "thinking.""

For several years, Beck has actively promoted "The 5000 Year Leap," by the late Cleon Skousen, on his radio and TV shows, and he recently wrote the foreword for a newly-released edition of the book, which was first published in 1981.

The Salon article describes Skousen as the man who changed Glenn Beck's life. They also described him as too extreme even for the conservative activists of the Goldwater era.

Who is Skousen? From the Salon article:

W. Cleon Skousen was not a historian so much as a player in the history of the American far right; less a scholar of the republic than a threat to it. At least, that was the judgment of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI, which maintained a file on Skousen for years that eventually totaled some 2,000 pages. Before he died in 2006 at the age of 92, Skousen's own Mormon church publicly distanced itself from the foundation that Skousen founded and that has published previous editions of "The 5,000 Year Leap."

Skousen was admired by leaders of the John Birch Society and spoke at their events. He also authored "more than a dozen books and pamphlets on the Red Menace, New World Order conspiracy, Christian child rearing, and Mormon end-times prophecy."

It is a body of work that does much to explain Glenn Beck's bizarre conspiratorial mash-up of recent months, which decries a new darkness at noon and finds strange symbols carefully coded in the retired lobby art of Rockefeller Center. It also suggests that the modern base of the Republican Party is headed to a very strange place.

TPM added one other interesting note about Cleon Skousen: "As reader J.S. notes, Beck isn't the only conservative leader with a taste for Skousen. In 2007, then-presidential candidate Mitt Romney expressed his affinity for his fellow Mormon."

Republicans and organizations like the MICOC may want to reconsider their courting of these extremists and the people who promote them. They just may come to the same decision conservatives did in 1963, when they decided Skousen's extremism was too much. "No conservative organization with any mainstream credibility wanted anything to do with him."

(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Health Care Debate Takes Compassionate Turn

What two words have been missing from the health care debate on the right? Compassion and religion. The party of compassionate conservatism has always been quick to use religion when it served their purpose in the past, but curiously, neither word has been mentioned often in relation to health care reform. There have been a few exceptions though. While conducting a town hall in Lebanon, PA, Sen. Arlen Specter was threatened with God's wrath by one protester.

"One day, God's gonna stand before you," he said. "And he's gonna judge you and the rest of your damn cronies up on the Hill, and then you can get your just desserts."

I wonder if that person was referring to the lies being told by some critics? As Jim Wallis of Sojourners recently said, "one important moral principle for the health-care debate is truth-telling."

The religious right may be keeping quiet about this issue, but a coalition of interfaith religious groups is backing health care reform. They've launched a 40 day campaign targeting 100 member of Congress and they'll participate in a telephone call-in event with President Obama on Aug 19.

Members of the group said Monday that they intend to fight back against what they say are lies being told about health reform.

“All of God’s children [have] got to be covered now,” said Rev. Jim Wallis, the CEO of Sojourners. “This is not a partisan political move. You are going to hear the moral drumbeat throughout this debate.”

The campaign is sponsored and organized by PICO National Network, Faith in Public Life, Faithful America, Sojourners and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.

Catholics in Alliance believe "health care is a basic human right, not a privilege," and Faithful America is letting Congress know people of faith support health care reform in a national TV ad.

Christians aren't alone in this effort. The coalition also includes Jewish and Muslim leaders. In fact, the National Democratic Jewish Council launched a "Rabbis for Health Insurance Reform" webpage urging Congress to get legislation passed for "Democrats, Republicans, Christians, Muslims, and Jews."

"Our tradition teaches us to pursue justice," the site reads. "Yet it is not a just society when families are forced to choose between paying their mortgages or paying for prescription drugs. It is not a just society when small businesses must choose between being profitable or providing coverage to their employees. It is not a just society when people are denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition for which they need medical care. Equal access to safe and affordable health care is an essential social justice issue of our time.

If ever there was a time to bring religion and compassion into the discussion, this is it. As one Indianapolis pastor who is part of the coalition said, this "effort addresses the suffering parishioners they [clergy] see each week who can’t afford treatments until their ailments reach emergency room levels. ... This is as much a crisis of faith as it is a crisis of health care.”


(Cross-posted at Blogging for MI.)

Health care reform still important to majority of Americans

A majority of Americans continue to say they would pay higher taxes if it meant health insurance for everyone, and health care is second only to the economy as a major domestic concern, so it makes perfect sense that a conservative group is launching a $1 million ad buy designed to scare people about a government-run health care system. If Americans want it, are willing to pay for it, and badly need it (45 million uninsured and rising at this point), rich conservatives will fight to prevent us from having it.

In this case, the group is Conservatives for Patients' Rights, headed by Richard Scott. The organization plans to spend at least $20 million on the effort and Scott is willing to throw in at least $5 million of his own money.

Who Is Richard Scott— and Why Is He Saying These Things about Health Care Reform? Scott is the former CEO of Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., a for-profit hospital chain that was the offspring of a merger between Columbia Healthcare and Hospital Corporation of America. His goal wasn't to improve health care and make it more accessible to people. As a hospital executive, "Scott limited “choice” and “competition” by buying up “hospitals by the bucketful” and routinely placed profits ahead of “accountability” or quality of care. During Scott’s tenure at Columbia/HCA, his cost cutting methods threatened patient care and safety."

His methods also got him in trouble with the law.

In Scott’s case, that happened a short three years after he became CEO of Columbia/HCA. In July of 1997, the FBI swooped down on HCA hospitals in five states. Within weeks, three executives were indicted on charges of Medicare fraud, and the board had ousted Scott.

The investigation revealed that the hospital chain had been bilking Medicare while simultaneously handing over kickbacks and perks to physicians who steered patients to its hospitals. One can only wonder how many of those patients really needed to be hospitalized—and how many were harmed.

The company did not fight the charges. In 2000, HCA (which by then had expunged “Columbia” from its name) pleaded guilty to no fewer than 14 felonies. Over the next two years, it would pay a total of $1.7 billion in criminal and civil fines.

Did I mention hospital bonuses?

Internal hospital records would later show that hospital executives were paid enormous bonuses, not for reducing infections or lowering mortality rates, but for meeting financial targets such as “growth in admissions and surgery cases.” In 1995 one-fourth of Columbia’s administrators won bonuses equaling 80 percent of their salaries—or more. When bonuses become that large, some critics charge, they no longer function simply as incentives. They invite fraud. Scott also did his best to avoid needy patients, questioning whether hospitals should throw their doors open to one and all. “Do we have an obligation to provide health care for everybody? Where do we draw the line? Is any fast-food restaurant obliged to feed everyone who shows up?

GoozNews has the best take on Scott and CPR:

His group shouldn't be called Conservatives for Patients Rights. It should be called Hospital Moguls for Bilking and Bankrupting America.

By the way, guess who Scott and Conservatives for Patients’ Rights hired as their public relations firm. CRC. The same group known for their work with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. That pretty much tells you how they plan to run their attack campaign against health care reform. Lies. Baseless attacks. Fear. Socialism. Blah, blah, blah...

You can read more about the ongoing fight to provide public health care to all Americans here, but when you hear these ads from CPR and Rick Scott remember one thing, they have health insurance. They're not worried about you. They're only worried about protecting corporate profits.

Takin' It To The Streets

This goes out to DJ, who's angry with conservative ideology that favors the rich over the poor and middle-class, and to Bruce Fealk, who wonders why Republicans "want to be so unpatriotic as to think Americans shouldn't earn good wages, have access to health care and a decent pension to live on during their golden years."

Bruce also asks, "When do we take to the streets en mass and call these idiots out? When do we say, ENOUGH!"

That day may be coming soon if Europe is any indication. Large demonstrations sparked by the economic crisis broke out recently in France, Greece, Iceland and Russia, and only a couple of weeks ago thousands of people marched in Dublin.

MORE than 120,000 workers surrounded the Dail, or Irish Parliament, to protest against bail-outs for wealthy bankers, soaring unemployment and the Fianna Fail government's attempts to force public-sector workers to take a pay cut. [...]

"There is anger, because everybody knows that this crisis is not our fault, that a business elite has destroyed our economy and has as yet to be made accountable for it," Mr Begg told the huge rally at Merrion Square in the heart of Dublin.

Workers are angry because the government plans on docking 7 percent from the paychecks of 350,000 Irish workers "amid revelations of shady dealings and irresponsible lending at banks now getting taxpayer's help." Sound familiar?

The Irish Times labeled it "a case of the bankers’ billions versus the worker’s mite."

The General Secretary of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, David Begg, said "those involved in what he called corruption had done huge damage to Ireland and described their actions as economic treason." Addressing the rally, Begg also added that "there is anger, because everybody knows that this crisis is not our fault, that a business elite has destroyed our economy and has as yet to be made accountable for it."

And Patricia McKeown, president of the ICTU, decried the "casino capitalism that has brought this country to its knees."

"An economy cannot be built on shady financial deals, privatisation of public services and the ever insatiable greed of the very, very wealthy," she insisted.

"But we face a government which wants the workers who built the economy to now sacrifice while it protects and bankrolls those who wrecked it. We are not prepared to live in that type of society," Ms McKeown declared.

Ironically, John McCain bragged about Ireland's economy on the campaign trail last year, pointing to their low business taxes as an example of what they can do for a country. Just like DeVos missed indications that Michigan wasn't the only state showing signs of economic stress, McCain missed signs that Ireland was having problems too.

The roots of Ireland’s fall date to more than 20 years ago, when a clutch of economists, politicians and civil servants put their heads together in this very pub and planted the philosophical seeds for the Irish economic miracle. ....

Known widely as the “Doheny & Nesbitt School of Economics,” these beery musings soon became government policy that chopped taxes in half, sharply reduced import duties and embraced foreign investment...

So how is Ireland's economic miracle working out? Their housing prices have fallen by as much as 50 percent, bank shares have plummeted by more than 90 percent, and unemployment is approaching 10 percent. No wonder one of London's senior police officers is warning that law-abiding middle-class individuals who would never have considered joining demonstrations may now seek to vent their anger through protests this year.

The public's rage with the banks and the Government is growing by the day. Thousands are losing their jobs through no fault of their own ... Homes are being repossessed across the country, but not the penthouse flats and country piles of bank bosses who thought nothing of taking home vast seven-figure bonuses, and consider £1 million a year a modest income.

The innocent are being punished while the guilty continue to lead affluent lives.

British police are preparing for a "summer of rage" as people protest the growing economic crisis. Europeans have had enough. Americans have had enough too, and as David Sirota says, "It is only going to get worse if genuine change doesn't happen in short order."

(Cross-posted at BFM.)

Republicans Say No to Largest Tax Cut in History

Republicans not only voted against creating jobs when they voted no on the stimulus plan, they also voted against one of the biggest tax cuts in history. Robert Schlesinger at US News gives us the lowdown.

Steven Waldman, a former U.S. News editor (well before I wandered these halls), makes an interesting case that the coming tax cut will indeed be the biggest ever.

The compromise stimulus plan includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy, or others.

But wait, you say, wasn't Bush's 2001 tax cut, at $1.35 trillion (funny how the GOP didn't mind draining one trillion dollars from the government coffers then), the largest in history?

Yes, over the full 10 years of its existence. But over the first two years, as Waldman points out above, the price tag was much smaller. So the Obama stimulus tax cut would be the biggest ever for the first two years.

It's common knowledge that Republicans love tax cuts, so what motivated them to vote against these? I think Steve Benen nails it with this remark:

George W. Bush's tax cuts were long-term income-tax rate cuts, which amounted to a generous break for those at the top, since the wealthy pay most income taxes. Obama's tax cuts, meanwhile, are short-term refunds paid directly to working and middle class families (some of which Republicans have denounced as "welfare").

We can't have money trickling down to the masses. That would ruin their plans to redistribute even more money up to the already wealthy.

By the way, with this stimulus bill, Obama kept his campaign promise to deliver tax cuts, and he's only been in office one month. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for Republicans to deliver on some of that compassionate conservatism they said we'd be seeing.

Republicans: No coherent belief system

On Face the Nation yesterday, conservative columnist David Brooks was brutally candid about the Republican Party following their recent losses.

"World of pain," Brooks said. "A generation of pain. 1964, it was so much better than now. In '64, they had a coherent belief system. They lost, they didn't persuade the American people about it, but they understood where they wanted to take the country.

"Now it's just a circular firing squad, with everybody attacking each other, and no coherent belief system, no leaders. You've got half the party waiting for Sarah Palin to come and rescue them. The other half is waiting for Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, to come rescue them. But no set of beliefs. Really a decayed conservative infrastructure. It's just a world of pain." [...]

"And, fundamentally, the conservative movement failed (and I've been in it my entire life) because it hasn't addressed the problems of today, the rise of China and Russia, the rise of inequality, energy, health care.

Republicans haven't addressed any of the issues that concern voters for one simple reason:

At this point, though, the party exists to oppose Democratic ideas. That's fine for an opposition force, but for a governing philosophy, it's an obvious sign of bankruptcy.

You can watch video from the show here.

Bush's Legacy: Debt

I read this, The Dubious Priorities Of The President’s FY 2009 Budget, and this...

The President’s budget would provide more tax cuts heavily skewed to the most well-off while cutting vital services for low- and moderate-income Americans, generating large deficits, and increasing the strain on states already confronting budget problems as a result of the economic downturn. The budget reflects misguided priorities that would leave the American people more vulnerable in a number of ways.

And I thought, "thank heaven Bush's term is almost over and the next president can start fixing the damage he's done." Then I read Robert Reich's column, Financing the Common Good, and found myself getting nervous.

A new Democratic president will face many of the same challenges Bill Clinton faced at the start of his administration -- but all made worse by George W. Bush. Clinton, recall, inherited a fiscal straightjacket. At the start of 1993, the federal budget deficit was running $300 billion a year as far as the eye could see. Prior Republican administrations had sought to "starve the beast," going deep into the red by spending heavily on defense while at the same time cutting taxes.

Yes, I remember those years, and I see the similarities between the economy then versus today, but it can be fixed. Right?

A new Democratic president coming into office in 2009 will face a national debt much larger than it was in 1993. Despite the $5 trillion 10-year budget surplus that ended the Clinton years, the federal debt at the end of the Bush years will be almost $4 trillion larger than it was then. It will have grown about 70 percent during Bush's reign. If you assume 5 percent interest, the Bush debt burden will require the government to pay its creditors -- prominent among them, the Japanese and Chinese -- $200 billion a year, forever. That will use up a lot of tax revenue even before any of the nation's problems are addressed. In this way, George W. and company have done Reagan one better. They've not only starved the beast through tax cuts for the rich and increased defense spending; they've just about dismembered it. [emphasis mine]

To all the people who voted for Bush, I hope you're happy. You got your short-term monetary gain at the expense of my grandchildren and their grandchildren into perpetuity.

Same old Republicans in a new world

The website TomPaine.com has a new look, and one of the features I always make a point to check out is in the lower right-hand corner: The Case, Straight Talk For The Common Good. It presents a conservative talking point (spin) with a progressive response. I thought this was a particularly good one:

CONservative spin: “Governments can't choose winners. Competition lets consumers choose, and efficient companies win. The last thing we need is more taxes to support big government programs.”

PROgressive response: Ironically, under President Bush, we've been hemorrhaging private manufacturing jobs. The largest source of new jobs under the Bush administration has been publicly-funded jobs—created by the military buildup, homeland security and state and local governments. Too many companies have used the tax cuts to merge, purge workers and outsource jobs abroad. And on some issues government can’t wait for "market solutions.” For example, our urgent need to move to a clean-energy economy means ending subsidies to big oil and mobilizing science and technology to develop alternative energy sources and improve energy efficiency. That will generate jobs and new industries.

Republicans are the dinosaurs of politics. They care more about protecting the interests of oil companies, privateers and cronies than they do generating jobs and new industries. This is a new century and a new world. If the Republicans continue to follow the same old path, they may soon find themselves extinct.

(Click here to read more Pro vs. Con.)

Liberal is not a dirty word

h/t to Abi, who reminds us to "Say It Loud, Say It Proud."



The Center for American Progress has more videos here.