the weary blues

Here are ten of my favorite songs of the year. They’re listed in no particular order with a brief explanation accompanying each track. Follow me on tumblr for more music throughout the year. Enjoy.

Read the rest of this article »

Martin Longman of Booman Tribune wrote a post yesterday called “Why There is No War on Mormons,” and in it, he explains how the left responds to disputes with religious groups, particularly Mormons:

Mormons are a conservative lot and, for a lot of reasons, they’re a natural fit for the Republican Party. We shouldn’t forget, though, that the most powerful Mormon in the country is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. When it comes to politics, I don’t like to critique people’s religious beliefs. Ask me what I think of a particular religion in a private setting and I’ll tell you, but I don’t want to try to score political points by running down someone’s private faith. I understand that a lot of Democrats (e.g., some in the gay community) feel like the Mormons are trying to oppress them and are very willing to fight back with tough language. I sympathize. I do. But even Democrats who fight back against Mormons do so with mockery and snark, not with incitement to fear. Even when Howie Klein, in the above cited piece, cites some history to show that the Mormons have been interested in winning the White House ever since Joseph Smith ran for the White House, he doesn’t say “egads, the Mormons are all out to get you and turn this country into a theocracy.” Yeah, Joseph Smith wanted to do that, but that doesn’t mean that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have the same intention. Nor does it mean that Harry Reid will switch parties to support a fellow Mormon’s presidential campaign.

There’s not a “war” on Mormonism for a few reasons. Most American conservatives have no clue what Mormons believe. Also, there’s a reason the Florida Family Association hasn’t called for advertisers to dump TLC’s Sister Wives as they have All-American Muslim, a show on the same network: the family depicted on Sister Wives still fits the white, heterosexual family mold. What All-American Muslim has done successfully is highlighted a national concerted effort to marginalize Muslims here in the US. No matter how normal or ordinarily they’re depicted on television, conservative groups will still protest the program. No matter how quietly and privately they worship, conservative groups will still protest their right to build new places of worship. No matter how lawfully or peacefully they live their lives, many conservatives will still claim they aren’t doing “enough” to curtail religious extremism. The Republican party nominating Mitt Romney, a Mormon, won’t be a step towards religious tolerance on the right if it’s done merely in response to someone they believe is of questionable religious affiliation or a straight up covert Muslim. Because as the response (and lack thereof) to All-American Muslim and Sister Wives shows, it’s not what’s on the inside that matters.

If you follow politics to any degree, I’m sure you’ve heard all about presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s infamous $10,000 bet during a televised debate this past weekend. As illustrated in the video above, many if not most reporters and pundits agree that this was a pretty unfortunate move by the normally uber-disciplined Romney. But why? The Washington Monthly‘s Steve Benen pretty much sums up the conventional take on the issue:

As a political story, Mitt Romney’s offer of a $10,000 bet on Saturday night has a lot going for it. The story reinforces allegations that Romney is out of touch and unable to relate to middle-class anxieties; it comes at an awful time for Romney as Newt Gingrich surges; and perhaps best of all for the media, “Willard’s Wager” is amusing and easy to understand.

This follows in line with what’s said in the video above. The Washington Post‘s Greg Sargent goes further:

While the $10,000 moment is politically problematic and revealing in some ways, it doesn’t really deserve to rise to the level of national narrative. What’s more deserving of a national storyline about Romney is his serial dishonesty, his willingness to say and do anything to win. […]

More broadly, political reporters and commentators are always tempted to seize on such moments as the $10,000 bet as defining of a candidate’s character. But this moment is ultimately almost as trivial as was John Edwards’ $400 haircut…. This broader pattern [of dishonesty] is what deserves the status of national narrative about Romney’s character, not some throwaway line about a bet.

While both make valid points, I feel there’s more to this story. More specifically, this incident could be put towards better use besides merely being a passing jab at Romney. The defining issue of the presidential election will ultimately be the economy and whether Americans support Obama’s continued push for infrastructure stimulus and consumer protection or the Republican candidate’s push for deregulation and austerity measures. “Willard’s Wager” highlights this choice.

Romney’s $10,000 bet illustrates why our fiscal policy shouldn’t be centered around fickle millionaires and billionaires like him. A future of deregulation that leaves the economy and consumers vulnerable and measures that cut programs targeted for the middle class would only further the gap between the have and have nots, and that is much more relevant to what’s at stake in next year’s election than how out of touch Romney is. It’s also a winning argument politically and at the heart of why Romney’s bet should be an eye-opener for Progressives.

The Republican ticket wants to put the fate of the economy in the hands of those who can afford to make five-figure wagers like Romney. And as long as our economy’s success is primarily dependent upon a rich person’s capricious discretion, like whether to invest in jobs or make silly bets on national television, inequality will remain and the middle class will continue to rot away.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

In case you haven’t heard, yet another woman has come forward today detailing inappropriate, sexual advances from Republican Presidential hopeful Herman Cain. What makes this particular allegation more significant is it came with a public appearance from the victim[1] and the fact that the allegation itself sounds more like sexual assault than mere harassment.

I admit when Cain first announced he was running for the Republican nomination, I assumed he’d be a no-name candidate vying for a fraction of a percentage point. His lack of command of the facts and outrageous, often nonexistent policy stances made him appear as someone looking for a regular seat on Fox News than legitimately attempting to be President one day. Six months later, he’s matching presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney in the polls. Unfortunately for him, the new accusations have an opportunity to not only derail his Presidential hopes (which isn’t hard to do), they could also damage his public image enough to repel Fox and other conservative outlets, hurting potentially lucrative post-election opportunities.

Earlier this year, Cain’s unreleased gospel album entitled Sunday Morning[2] leaked online. It was recorded in the 1990s, which is ironically in the same time period as the allegations are said to have taken place. This wouldn’t be the first time a politician’s put forth such a public display of personal spirituality and morality only to couple it with inappropriate, contradicting actions behind the scenes (especially in the ’90s). Included on it is “I Must Tell Jesus” (above, mp3) which features a swaying piano and baseline carrying a baritone Cain singing about being over-burdened and seeking compassion.

I wonder what Cain’s telling Jesus these days. So far, he’s told everyone else conflicting accounts of the alleged events masked in baseless cries of racism. So far, he’s shown no compassion for the burdened victims (or women in general, considering his stances on women’s reproductive rights). Better yet, what did Cain tell Jesus when confronted with an urge to approach the alleged victims? Ironically, Cain left off a verse from the century old song which contained a few lines addressing that very issue:

…What must I do when worldliness calls me? What must I do when tempted to sin?…

If the answer was to put those events behind him and run for President anyway, he should seek better advice.

1. Lots of the victim-blaming thus far stupidly revolves around the anonymity of other accusers. [↩]
2. Album cover designed by me. I was bored. [↩]