AND THIS IS LEADERSHIP?

Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward."

He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.

"The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said.

He also noted that President Obama "has a very full plate" with financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters.

And it would be very, very wrong to use the can't-walk-and-chew-gum analogy.

I don't know. Perhaps somewhere down the road, we will come to see that Obama's decision to wash his hands of health care reform at this point was a wise move, but I can't see how.

From TPM.

PS: Picture Lyndon Johnson washing his hands of the matter.

FACTCHECK FOR PAT ROBERTSON

From The Straight Dope:

Pat Robertson:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French, you know, Napoleon III and whatever, and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, 'We will serve you if you'll get us free from the French.' True story. And so the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal,' and … the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.

JillGat at TSD:

One detail we need to clear up right away. Haiti's bargain with the devil was supposedly struck in 1791. Napoleon III wasn't elected ruler of France until 1848, and Napoleon I didn't become big cheese until 1799. The French entity whose collective heel the Haitians were under in 1791 was the Constituent Assembly. We'll assume Satan didn't screw this up and the fault lies with poor note taking on the part of Pat Robertson, who presumably still gets nervous when dealing with infernal forces. You'd think he'd be used to it by now.

There's more, much more.

And further from a Caribbean American, Dianne M. Diakité, associate professor of Religion and African American Studies at Emory University, The Myth of Voodoo.

As Robertson narrates it, in his latest fiction-disguised-as-revelation, “something happened a long time ago in Haiti,” and that something was Haiti's vodou heritage. The earthquake, an unfortunate turn of events in Haiti’s unnatural history, presents Robertson, and the Christian cohorts supporting his ministry, yet another platform to characterize Haiti as a reprobate nation destined to suffer one disaster after another under the curse of either the Christian devil or God.

African Religious Legacy

To set the record straight, the varied imperial and stateless civilizations of Africa each had their own established religious beliefs, practices and institutions well before any exposure to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Vodou, a term with endless contemplative meanings and inferences, including “god,” “spirit,” and “deep mystery” is one such religious culture that should not be misconstrued as any devil-dealing clan.

Today, libraries of reliable scholarship confirm Vodou’s credibility as a viable historic and contemporary tradition most prominent in West Africa and Haiti. This religious heritage links Haiti, Benin, Togo, and Ghana through a civilizing legacy where cognate cosmologies, philosophies, languages, medical therapies, diets, rites of passage, codes of conduct, aesthetic norms, artistic conventions, and technologies furnish entire communities with a shared sense of identity and the ritual/theological grammars required to guide their common life and transmission of humanity from one generation to the next.

Again, there's more.

Take that, Pat!

Thanks to Paul (A.) for the link to The Straight Dope and to Ann for the link to Professor Diakité.

GARRISON KEILLOR NOW AND THEN

At the The Lead, Peter Carey posted a link to Garrison Keillor's reflection on his visit to Grace Episcopal Cathedral in San Francisco.

From Salon.

I went to church in San Francisco on Sunday, the big stone church on Nob Hill, whose name is an old slang term for a rich person, where a gaggle of railroad tycoons built their palaces high above the squalid tenements of the poor back in the Gilded Age, and there with considerable pomp we baptized a dozen infants into the fellowship of faith and we renounced the evil powers of this world, which all in all is a good day's work.
....

I want to believe in the kindness of strangers. I believe that if voters actually knew gay couples, they would not vote to ban gay marriage. This particular cruelty is the result of social separation, which breeds contempt. I know something about that, having spent time in grad school. When I was 24 I was an insufferable snob, thanks to lofty isolation from the ordinary tumult of life, and what cured me eventually was entering the field of light frothy entertainment. When you strive to amuse a crowd of strangers, you have to drop your pants, and a man without pants gives up the right to look down on anybody.
....

And here, this morning, in a city famous for eccentricity, we strangers in a cathedral embrace other people's children and promise to fight the good fight in their behalf, a ceremony that never fails to bring tears to my eyes. We renounce evil powers. I renounce isolation and separation and the splendid anonymity of the Internet and the doink-doink-doink of the clicker propelling me through six Web sites in five minutes. I vow to put my feet on the ground and walk through town and make small talk with clerks and call my mother on the phone and put money in the busker's hat. We welcome the infants into our herd and though some of them sob bitter tears at the prospect, they are now in our hearts and in our prayers and we will not easily let them go.

Lovely sentiments, yes? And yet...and yet...an earlier column of Keillor's came to mind as I read the recent piece. Both columns returned to my mind again and again, and I decided to write about them.

From Salon, then:

I grew up the child of a mixed-gender marriage that lasted until death parted them, and I could tell you about how good that is for children, and you could pay me whatever you think it's worth.
....

Nature is about continuation of the species -- in other words, children. Nature does not care about the emotional well-being of older people.

Under the old monogamous system, we didn't have the problem of apportioning Thanksgiving and Christmas among your mother and stepdad, your dad and his third wife, your mother-in-law and her boyfriend Hal, and your father-in-law and his boyfriend Chuck. Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors.

And now gay marriage will produce a whole new string of hyphenated relatives. In addition to the ex-stepson and ex-in-laws and your wife's first husband's second wife, there now will be Bruce and Kevin's in-laws and Bruce's ex, Mark, and Mark's current partner, and I suppose we'll get used to it.

The country has come to accept stereotypical gay men -- sardonic fellows with fussy hair who live in over-decorated apartments with a striped sofa and a small weird dog and who worship campy performers and go in for flamboyance now and then themselves. If they want to be accepted as couples and daddies, however, the flamboyance may have to be brought under control. Parents are supposed to stand in back and not wear chartreuse pants and black polka-dot shirts. That's for the kids. It's their show.

Keillor apologized on his website for his words in the earlier piece, but, as you see if you read the comments, not everyone is satisfied with the apology. Keillor says that the column was "tongue in cheek" and then moves on to what I see as the some-of-my-best-friends-are-gay defense.

A gay man leaves the following comment:

I am a gay man in my mid-twenties living in a conservative state where gay marriage was voted down on a ballot. Even the liberal politicians in my state are too spineless to stand up for gay rights. Those are the sort of people who deserve shaming and public outrage. I have been a huge fan of yours since I discovered public radio and your work in my teens. I remain a loyal fan today.

From another gay man:

I read, then re-read the article as it appears in Salon.

I'm sorry, but how was I to know this was tongue-in-cheek? In the current world of Fox News your column seems tame, and I believe one requirement of satire is that the intended audience be able to reasonably identify the work as such.

Perhaps if you had mentioned your own multiple marriages I would have gotten the joke. The way the piece read it just seemed like you had turned into Andy Rooney, complaining about the rock and or roll turning the kids into hooligans.

Please, if you're going to indulge in swiftian satire, for all our sakes, try to be more...well, swift!

I laughed out loud at the second comment, because the writer expressed my sentiments exactly, but with cleverness and wit far beyond my capability.

At the present time, I have quite a few gay friends, and I admit at times to feeling on shaky ground when deciding what humor is acceptable for me to speak and what is not, simply because I am not gay. However, I would not use humor such as Keillor's in his older column. Also, if you look at my sidebar, you will see a four-parter titled "Confessions of a Recovering Homophobe". Today, I can't even read what I wrote some years ago. I cringe, and then I just stop, but I leave the links to the posts in a prominent place as a reminder to myself to strive to be humble and not to judge. I may be over-sensitive because of my past prejudice - or not.

What you think?

AND THERE'S THIS....

From Ezra Klein at the Washington Post

My preference is that House Democrats pass the Senate bill and then run their fixes through the reconciliation process.

Or

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

Do we have a winner?

A NEW BABY ON THE WAY?

From Tim at To See and To Follow:

Grandbaby update

Looks like the stork might come in to land some time tonight...

Pray for mom and baby for a safe delivery.

FIVE REASONS NOT TO MESS WITH CHILDREN

David@Montreal thought I needed a laugh. I can't think why.


A kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child's work.

As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.

The girl replied, 'I'm drawing God.'

The teacher paused and said, 'But no one knows what God looks like.'

Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, 'They will in a minute.'
-------

A Sunday school teacher was discussing the Ten Commandments with her five and six year olds.

After explaining the commandment to 'honour' thy Father and thy Mother, she asked, 'Is there a commandment that teaches us how to treat our brothers and sisters?'

Without missing a beat one little boy (the oldest of a family) answered, 'Thou shall not kill.'
-------

One day a little girl was sitting and watching her mother do the dishes at the kitchen sink. She suddenly noticed that her mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head.

She looked at her mother and inquisitively asked, 'Why are some of your hairs white, Mum?'

Her mother replied, 'Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white.'

The little girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, 'Mummy, how come ALL of grandma's hairs are white?'
-------


The children had all been photographed, and the teacher was trying to persuade them each to buy a copy of the group picture.

'Just think how nice it will be to look at it when you are all grown up and say, 'There's Jennifer, she's a lawyer,' or 'That's Michael, He's a doctor.'

A small voice at the back of the room rang out, 'And there's the teacher, she's dead.'
-------

The children were lined up in the cafeteria of a Catholic elementary school for lunch. At the head of the table was a large pile of apples. The nun made a note, and posted on the apple tray:

'Take only ONE . God is watching.'

Moving further along the lunch line, at the other end of the table was a large pile of chocolate chip cookies.

A child had written a note, 'Take all you want. God is watching the apples.'

Thanks David, I needed a laugh. Actually the original email contained seven stories, but I reduced the number to five for the benefit of my readers with short attention spans. ;-)

OBAMA TO SENATE - WAIT FOR SCOTT BROWN

From TPM:

President Obama told ABC News today that the Senate will not attempt to pass health care reform before Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) is sworn in.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

There you have it. Obama - ever the good bi-partisan.

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," he said. "People are angry, they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

You got that right, Mr President. Many of us are angry, but not all for the same reason. Some of us ARE angry over what's happened over the last two years. Get your head out of the sand, sir. The people of Massachusetts don't speak for me.

UPDATE: From the latest Democratic talking points:

"Republicans have an obligation to the American people to join us in governing our nation through these difficult times and to help clean up the mess they left behind," reads the memo obtained by TPMDC. "It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own. Senate Republicans to come to the table (sic) with ideas for improving our nation and not obstructionist tactics."

That tough talk from the Dems will get the Republicans in line, won't it? The Dems have given up. They don't want to lead.

Again from TPM. They're on a roll over there.

"IS IT RIGHT?"

"Somebody said to me not too long ago, 'Dr. King, don't you think you're hurting your leadership by taking a stand against the war in Vietnam? Aren't people who once respected you gonna lose respect for you? And aren't you hurting the budget of your organization?'

"And I had to look at that person and say, 'I'm sorry, sir, but you don't know me. I am not a consensus leader. And I do not determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Leadership Conference or by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion.'

"Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but he's a molder of consensus. And on some positions, cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expedience asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?'

"But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?'


I had to steal the quote from Martin Luther King from Paul the BB. Please read Paul's commentary.

"Is it right?" How quaint. Truly an inconvenient and out of fashion question in political and ecclesiastical circles today.

DISGUSTED, DISCOURAGED, AND DEPRESSED

From Cleveland.com:

With Republicans threatening to win the late Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts Senate seat and deny Democrats a filibuster-proof majority, White House officials and Democratic congressional leaders are contemplating a major strategy shift to finish health care overhaul without further Senate action.

Under this strategy, House Democrats, who passed a health care bill in November, would be called on to approve the version that cleared the Senate just before Christmas, rather than continue to negotiate compromises over provisions on which the two houses differ.

Now we know that Democrat Martha Coakley lost the Senate seat to Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. No more seeking the magic 60 votes in the Senate. They're gone. Were they ever there without huge compromises in legislation to capture the votes of the DINOs? There's blame to go around. A good many folks say that Coakley took too much for granted, that she took three crucial weeks off in December, that she generally ran a bad campaign.

The White House didn't get seriously involved in campaigning for Coakley until the last days of the campaign. I want Obama to fire Rahm Emanuel, the cautious centrist, the man who points the finger at everyone else rather than acknowledge his own failures. The buck stops with Obama for appointing him in the first place, but he can rectify the mistake by getting Emanuel out of the White House now.

How to turn this loss around? Howard Dean said it best, with "toughness, boldness, and leadership", and neither Rahm Emanuel nor Barack Obama have shown evidence of the qualities needed. The White House, represented by Emanuel, wasted months pushing a hopeless bi-partisan agenda to pass a health care bill, which was never going to happen. Then, they spent more months trying to appease the DINOs, which perhaps had to be done to get any bill at all out of the Senate.

Will the Democrats in the House get it together, accept the Senate bill, vote on it and pass the bill on to Obama to sign? Too many in the Congress show no signs of toughness, boldness, or leadership. The progressives in the House are threatening to bolt, because they don't like the Senate bill, and centrist and conservatives in the House are backing away from the bill that they voted for, because they see Coakley's loss as a repudiation of the progressive agenda and of health care reform. If no health care bill is passed, the Democrats will have virtually nothing to offer to the voters at election time this year.

Obama delayed fixing "don't ask, don't tell", presumably to get passage of a health care bill out of the way first. Now, we're still stuck with DADT, and we may not have a health care reform bill.

How did Bush push so much of his agenda through the Democratic Congress during the last years of his term? With the cooperation of lackey Democrats, who are besotted with bi-partisanship.

We voted for change, and we're not getting change.

OH NO!

My visitor count yesterday was 666, the Mark of the Beast. What to make of THAT?

Click on the picture to enlarge.

My numbers are higher than usual because of the many visitors to my two posts on Holy Trinity Cathedral in Haiti.

Is it the voudou in Haiti, or the voodoo in New Orleans?

Tongue pressed firmly in cheek!