Mitt Knows How the Economy Works

Mitt Romney knows how the economy works.    Damn straight he does!   That's what is so frightening about him.

Joe Huster

Pants On Fire!

I was just listening to Mitt Romney repeat the latest charge against President Obama.  In summary, the charge is “Obama said that if you have a business, you didn’t build it yourself.  The government did.”  After repeating this charge, Romney added that “saying something this outrageous demonstrates just how out of touch Obama is” [Paraphrase].

Where to begin!

First, Obama did not say that business owners “did not build their businesses” and/or “the government did.”  Obama was talking about the roads and bridges that were built by all of us collectively, that allow businesses to operate.  Although he may have experienced a slip of the tongue, the unmistakable message was that businesses do not thrive solely by the efforts of entrepreneurs.  They also benefit from the collective investment we all make in our infrastructure.  Entrepreneurs do not build their businesses on their own – they do so with help from the rest of us in the form of government.

Second.  Romney obviously knows this.  He is not stupid.  Anyone of reasonable intelligence who watched the clip of Obama’s speech knows what he meant to say.  So Romney is intentionally lying.  Not that lying is anything new to Mr. Romney.  He lies so reflexively and continuously that it is difficult to keep up – fortunately, someone is up to the task.

Third, I find it amazing that Mitt Romney and other conservatives think this will be an effective line of criticism.  I mean, Mr. Romney is correct about one thing – Obama would have to be pretty out of touch to say something that stupid.  No one except a die-hard partisan Obama hater could bring themselves to believe that Obama actually thinks the government, rather than business owners, builds private businesses – and Romney’s already got their votes.  I’d be embarrassed to publicly assign that belief to anyone – much less to the president of the United States.

So not only is Mitt Romney a liar, he’s a political fool.  And to think I used to admire the man!

Forth, I find it astonishing that Romney is willing to lie so brazenly and repeatedly in public.  He is a Mormon, after all.  From what I know about Mormon teaching, the entire reason every human being is put on earth by God is to perfect themselves - morally speaking.  And perfect honesty is an element of that moral perfection.  Didn’t Jesus say “what should it profit a man if he gain the entire world only to lose his soul.”  I’ve never seen a more public display of someone rejecting that teaching.

According to his own professed beliefs, Mitt Romney is apparently willing to lose his soul to gain the entire world.  And none if his fellow Mormons appear concerned about this.

I’m just saying . . .

Joe Huster

Constitutional Crisis

Hi Everyone,

Our local church is going through a transition regarding its association with the Missionary Church.  The Constitution of the Missionary Church limits membership to those who affirm an extensive set of moral and doctrinal positions.  It seems that some of the members of our Church (me obviously) are not on-board with all of these doctrines and we’re debating whether this fact should force us to disassociate ourselves and start a new church.

So I read through the Missionary Church’s constitution this morning.  Got a big kick out of it!  Frankly, if the Missionary Church is committed to limiting its membership to individuals who agree with each of their stands, there needs to be a serious membership purge.

But I digress.  Of particular interest to me were the sections that began “we recognize that sincere Christians have conscientious differences as to their understanding of the teaching of the word of God regarding . . .” and “we recognize there are committed Christians who hold different views concerning . . .”

The issues being discussed were “participation in war” and the doctrine of “assurance.”  The constitution explicitly stated that “sincere Christians” can reasonably disagree about these issues – implying that sincere Christians could not reasonably disagree about the issues on which the Missionary Church was willing to take a stand.  On those issues, the rightness of their views is so obvious that no genuine believer could, in good faith, take a different position.

It takes a remarkable degree of arrogance to think, for example, that the doctrine of inerrancy is so obviously correct that no sincere Christian could question it.  The doctrine is absurd on its face, given that the only way confirm it would be to check the bible for errors - and the doctrine itself expressly forbids such checking.  I’m guessing that we’re supposed to believe in the inerrancy of the scriptures because the scriptures themselves claim to be inerrant.  But how do we know that scriptural claims of inerrancy (assuming they exist) aren’t themselves errors of the very sort some of us are worried about?

I mean, come on guys.  This is low hanging fruit!  I can’t make myself accept a doctrine justified by such obviously circular reasoning.  Add to that the fact that the scriptures endorse some pretty questionable ideas, practices and historical narratives and I’m wondering how anyone in their right mind could believe in inerrancy.

Don't even get me started on Gay rights!

And yet the Missionary church is so confident about this doctrine that it is willing to say every genuine Christian accepts this doctrine as obviously correct?

I’ve long believed that we should always remain open-minded.  I don’t believe open mindedness is an intrinsic virtue – that it is valuable in and of itself.  I don’t think that we should expose ourselves to new ideas just because they are new, particularly when older ideas have served us well.

But open-mindedness has “instrumental” value because it is a necessary condition for correcting error.  An interesting feature of having beliefs is that everyone necessarily thinks their current beliefs are true.  It is impossible to think otherwise.  Of course, everyone also knows that they have believed wrongly in the past, so it is reasonable to assume that at least some of our current beliefs are wrong.  The problem is that we don’t know which of our current beliefs are incorrect.  They all seem correct right now (or we would have already abandoned them).

And there is only one way to find out – we must listen to those who reject our beliefs with an open mind.  By “open,” I don’t mean uncritical.  Beliefs that have served us well are entitled to some deference.  And criticisms of our beliefs should themselves be subjected to scrutiny.  “Open” means actively entertaining the possibility that my current belief or understanding may be wrong, or partially wrong, or incomplete.  It means giving those who dissent a fair hearing – not for their sake, or out of some silly notion that all beliefs are entitled to respect – but for our sake, so that we might have the opportunity to exchange error for truth.

That’s why I think constitutions of this sort are so problematic.  There’s nothing wrong with a statement of beliefs.  What’s wrong is the attempt to protect these beliefs from criticism by constitutionally excluding members who disagree. That is not only wrong.  It is foolish.  It guarantees that all members of the Missionary Church will continue to hold false beliefs to the extent that the constitutional drafters were wrong about anything.

Joe Huster

This is a genuinely charming public marriage proposal!

Enjoy!

Joe H.

Obama Comes Out - Romney Hides Out -UPDATE

President Obama came out in favor of same sex marriage.  Good for him.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, said he doesn’t support same sex marriage.  When asked why he doesn’t support same sex marriage, he repeated the oft stated “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

I know I am repeating myself, but I feel compelled to point out, once again, that “I believe marriage is between one man and one woman” is neither an argument nor a reason – it’s a statement of preference.  At best it is a statement indicating an unusually strong commitment to an unexamined Platonic “form.”

Consider the interpretive options for this statement.  First, the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is the relevant assertion - anyone who makes this statement can be assumed to believe it.

But what does someone who asserts “marriage is between one man and one woman” believe?  As a statement of fact, the proposition is demonstrably false.  There are thousands of legally valid same-sex marriages in existence in numerous countries, including the United States.  There are also many legally valid polygamous marriages in various parts of the world.   No one in their right mind could be advancing this proposition as a factual assessment of actual legal marriages.

Those familiar with Plato’s theory of the forms might recognize an implicit appeal to the eternal unchanging idea of “marriage.”  Plato believed that each particular thing (is what it is because it) partakes of an eternal “form” or idea.  The form itself is unchanging and complete.  It exists in a realm accessible only to the intellect.

According to Plato, particular men are men because they embody the form “man.”  Embodiment of the form “man” is what distinguishes men from women.  Conversely, particular women are women because they embody the form “woman.”  Embodiment of the form “Woman” is what distinguishes women from men.

In other words, things are what they are because they embody an eternal unchanging “essence” that is common to all things of that type. 

Many opponents of same-sex marriage have something like this in mind when they insist that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”  They are appealing to (what they perceive is) an eternal unchanging idea – an idea defined by God in the process of his creation.  On this theory, same sex marriage is an absurdity because “marriage,” by inalterable definition, is between one man and one woman.

Unfortunately, this is not a proper application of Plato’s epistemology.  For Plato, a form is intellectually grasped through a process known as the “dialectic.”  The dialectic involves an attempt to articulate the essence of a thing, based on what can be observed about particular things of that type, followed by a critique of the articulated essence, followed by a refined articulation of a thing’s essence, etc., until a stable and workable definition emerges.

In other words, Plato would not start with an eternal unchanging definition of “man” and then use it to distinguish particular men from particular women.  Plato would instead examine particular men, in an attempt to isolate what they all shared in common, particularly in contrast to women, and then subject his idea to rational scrutiny so as to refine his idea of “man,” until it provided a stable and workable insight regarding the essence of “man.”

This is precisely what the opponents of “same-sex marriage” refuse to do.  Like Plato, they subscribe to a theory of “forms.”  But unlike Plato, they insist upon a definition of marriage that they will not submit to the dialectic process.  Their invocation of Plato’s theory, to the extent that they realize they are invoking Plato, amounts to their insistence that marriage be defined so as to exclude gays.  They are not trying to grasp the essence of marriage by examining particular marriages.  They are attempting to prevent proposed “gay marriages” from being considered relevant to our understanding of the institution.

This indicates that the proposition “marriage is between one man and one woman” is best translated as “I prefer that marriage be defined as between one man and one woman.”  And this proposition translates fairly straightforwardly to the proposition “I prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage.”

Okay.  Fine.  But then I have to ask, “why do you prefer that gays be excluded from the institution of marriage?”  And it won’t do to simply assert that “marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Joe H.

 UPDATE

This is a pretty fair assessment    of Mitt Romney's response to the revelation that he gang assaulted a weaker boy in high school.



.

Ode to Obama and Romney

I was thinking of posting a list of reasons why I will not be voting for President Obama this year - and sure as hell won't be voting for Mitt Romney.  But I discovered this morning that   someone else has captured my sentiments perfectly. 
 
I find it astonishing that so many conservatives see Obama as a radical leftist.  There is absolutely no evidence that Obama is anything but a pragmatic, centrist conservative.  The fact that he is viewed as a radical by so many on the right illustrates, to my mind, the psychologically distorting power of tribal partisan allegiance.

That said, I predict, for reasons 1-4 cited in Rose’s post, that the Obama presidency will end up doing greater damage to the nation than the Bush presidency.  By refusing to prosecute criminal elites within our government and financial system, as the law requires, President Obama has created the impunity state.  The (now working) presumption that elite officials and corporate executives are immune from prosecution when they break our laws will eventually work far more harm to our nation than anything done under the Bush presidency.  Mark my words on this.

I like President Obama, and agree with him on most issues.  I'm confident that he will beat Mitt Romney like a drum come November.  But I can’t support him.

For the record, I also used to respect Mitt Romney.  His record of accomplishment is quite remarkable.  And he is, underneath the "severe conservative" façade, a reasonable man.  Unfortunately, Mr. Romney has repeatedly demonstrated a cravenness so deep that I cannot bear the thought of voting for him.  A man who passed up the opportunity to denounce Rush Limbaugh for repeatedly calling a young female political opponent a “slut,” lacks character, plain and simple.

Sigh!

Joe H.

The Upside of GOP Intolerance

This post by Timothy Noah is highly worth reading. It illustrates the impossible task facing Mitt Romney as he proceeds to the general election - the task of moving back to the political center.

The problem, put simply, is that movement conservatives have become “open” extremists. They’ve convinced themselves that their views on social and economic issues reflect the majority of the country and, therefore, they no longer feel any need to disguise or soften their positions, or to brook any compromise.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of the Paul Ryan budget.

Hence Romney’s support for draconian measures at the state level to encourage self-deportation by illegal immigrants.

Hence Romney’s endorsement of Mississippi’s “Personhood Amendment.”

Hence Romney’s description of himself as a “severe conservative” (whatever that is).

I agree with Noah that this is a good thing. The fact that Mitt Romney did not feel free to denounce Rush Limbaugh for calling Goergetown law student Sandra Fluke a“slut,” the fact that Romney denounced a national health care reform law almost identical to the program he implemented in Massachusetts - and which he proclaimed was an appropriate model for national reform, and the fact that he is now unwilling to defend his openly gay policy aide, Richard Grenell, from anti-gay bigots, is great news. The GOP no longer believes it needs to hide who they are - and they won’t let Romney do it for them.

Best news I’ve gotten in awhile. Joe H.