Friday, December 19, 2008

it's ok if the jews are gay (mantra o'the day)...

Well here's an interesting turn for the worm:
[S]ome interesting quotes from Warren from 2006, talking about how he'd visited Syria and found it to be a place of moderation and religious tolerance -- including tolerance towards Jews, who in reality are barred from government jobs and who are singled out for special identification and discrimination in other ways.
Wow! Quite the mess he's stepped in, our Prez-elect. Just having thrown the LGBT types under the bus with his selection of Rick Warren to invoke a prayer at his Inaugural party, turns out these pro-Syrian comments will most assuredly piss off the much more powerful Jewish lobby. So if he pulls the plug on Warren now, could that not be interpreted as a second smack of the gay?

It was only last night that I was thinking the pick to be fairly stupid because one could tell Obama would never pick an anti-semite or a Klan symp to prove his "broad-mindedness," although that reeeeally would've been, uhm, broad-minded had he done so.

Turns out my thoughts could've been a tad hasty. And Dubya hisself couldn't've done a more heckuva job.


Anonymous said...

You should listen to me more often. Did I not call it that the Messiah would have to start tossing the left wing under the bus? But he will try to make it up to them with federal recognition of their unions.

Ironically though, he will be screwing some of them financially. Presently gay couples, who are often dual earners and many are successful, will be taxed LESS than married couples after Obama's tax hike goes in. This is because their marriage isn't recognized for federal tax purposes, so they are treated as single and get a combined household income of 200K each before the success penalty kicks in, while married couples are considered one taxpayer with a 250K limit. Thus, in a gay marriage, both spouses can earn 200K and avoid the tax (total 400K) while in a traditional marriage, one spouse can earn 200K but the other is capped at 50K. Further, in the gay marriage, the overall tax burden on the first 50K of each spouse is at lower rates than the 50K of the spouse in the traditional marriage. He or she is taxed at the highest rate from the very first dollar earned (this is the marriage penalty at work).

So, in the interest of tax fairness, maybe Obama should grant gay marriages recognition in the tax code. Then his gay supporters will feel just like the rest of us (D'oh. It just occurred to me that they are used to that and actually like it, so a new metaphor is in order).


Barking Up Trees said...

it wouldn't be "screwing" them if they get what they want: Equal. Justice. Under. Law...

i know you're job and your obsession are all about taxes and how to get the feds to tax you less, but i'd be curious: inasmuch as you've never laid a jesus trip on me, do you buy into the bible book of timothy where it says "the love of money is the root of all evil"... ?

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get the whole equality thing, and in theory, these folks should be quite happy to join the mainstream, and if that means getting boned on taxes, well, that is part of the mainstream. But you can't tell me that they will embrace it willingly and happily. They aren't so different from the rest of us, and the rest of us dislike taxes.

Re: Timothy. You should really be using the New Testament quote about a rich man entering heaven, and how that could no more happen than a camel passing through the eye of the needle.

Also, you are missing the point. My diatribes and postulations aren't about love of money, it is about what we value in this nation, and what we define as fairness and justice. It is, at its core, about what it means to be an american, a definition that is more in flux than at any time in our recent history.

Barking Up Trees said...

recommend "the people's history of the united states" by howard zinn...

if u dare...

Anonymous said...

I dare, though I will probably want to filter out Zinn's bias.

For some strange reason, I thought Chomsky wrote that. And didn't Damon's character in "Good Will Hunting" mention that book in the bar scene?

Anonymous said...

Something tells me from a quick googling that I will agree with Zinn on facts, on some interpretations of those facts, but will ultimately say to him "so what?"

He did have one interesting quote on al jazeera:

"But there are just enough Americans who have been satisfied, you might say getting some of the "goodies" of the empire, just some of them, just enough people satisfied to support the system, so we got this way because of the ability of the system to maintain itself by satisfying just enough of the population to keep its legitimacy.

And I think that era is coming to an end."

This is undoubtedly true on many levels. And this is where Obamas revolution will halt. Essentially, it will be Chicago politics on a national scale, with your folks getting the goodies and voting you back in.

Problem is, in Chicago, they could simply fleece the state or feds. Who do the feds fleece?

For this purpose, Obama decided to demonize a small segment of the population. We, the top 5% of wage earners, have become to Obama and the Democrats what the Jews were to Hitler and the Nazis. What he fails to consider, however, is the collateral damage since the folks at the lowest strata of that demonized group (folks like me) will bear the brunt of his policies, while the really rich will largely escape unscathed. Consider that those jews that could escape Europe, because they were wealthy enough, did so. Others weren't so lucky.

Consider also the effect on the american way, the aspirational class. Obama's demonization has the effect of kicking away part of the aspirational ladder. There will not be just a great distance between rich and poor, but upward progression will have a hard roadblock. Thus the only way to get rich in America will be to be born that way or go straight from obscurity to stardom with the latest craze, invention, act, sports skill, or criminal empire. NO more working your way up--that will be for suckers (like me, apparently). The professions will no longer be a place where many aspire--why ring up 200K in student loan debt if you are just gonna get the shit taxed out of you. Better to go to plumbing school, learn the trade and then start your own business (This is where Joe the Plumber was a fool--you start the business but don't declare so much that you wind up in Obama's clutches).

I blogged earlier today about how the housing meltdown was the result in part of a lot of laws, some very old, some not so old, that caused results and distortions that ultimately caused the housing meltdown. I further noted that some of those laws were intended to prevent precisely what happened, and yet they contributed to it.

Obama cannot repeal the law of unintended consequences, and what he plans is the equivalent of buying into what the markets call a "suckers rally."

Anonymous said...

In fact, for Zinn, I should follow the lead of Abbie Hoffman, and "Steal this Book." After all, Zinn wouldn't want to see any profit.

I met Hoffman before he died. In the end, he was a petty thief that lived off his sixties laurels. I got to see that firsthand when he ripped off the restaurant that I met him in.