Bang the Drum - Latest Comments

Re: Sean Hannity, Douchebag

milwaukeeprogressiveexaminer — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:05:52 -0000

Sean Hannity does not really like people who disagree with him. That is why he relies so much on a mute button.

Re: Enough with the AIG feeding frenzy…

Karoli — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:07:19 -0000

I'm still around -- just blogging politics on the main site http://drumsnwhistles.com

Re: Enough with the AIG feeding frenzy…

miketwo — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:00:24 -0000

Where did you go...? :(

Re: Sean Hannity, Douchebag

miketwo — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 15:58:29 -0000

Hah. 1 year later, and it turns out Hannity was wrong, as usual. Hilarious.

Re: Financial Armageddon

whyus — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:12:48 -0000

LORD, please help us all. Rep Kanjorski says, they haven't got a clue. Everyone (the government), is on the bandwagon and has a lot to say when greed is involved and they are getting something they want, (our money), but it's, "we don't know", when it's time to fix the mess they've created. What a shame, and I mean a crying shame.

Re: The Christian Coalition: Obsolete and Broken

Christian Church Pastor — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:23:32 -0000

I hope the Christian Coalition can maintain the focus of speaking for truth rather than trying to establish the Kingdom of God on earth. The gospel is the answer to a lost world. Believers should be aware of the value of life and the principles of the Bible. Can we expect a lost world to live like Christians if they don't have spiritual life?

Re: Rove Thumbs Nose at Congress: Again

Marie Carnes — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:04:30 -0000

Rove on the run? Apparently, he was at the Schaumburg Marriott when he should have been sitting for the Judiciary Committee. Interesting.

Re: There are no words…

ursulas — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 01:31:00 -0000

Well said.

I kept remembering, in brief moments, how hard I cried when Bush was "re-elected" and how exciting this is that the people have spoken. Yes we did!

Re: Where I tell Tim Rutten to get a 401k education

Ike Pigott — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:01:42 -0000

Absolutely - except for the part where you call for more regulation. If you know of specific needs, then fine. But regulation for regulation's sake stifles far more business and chokes more growth than it prevents in fraud.

Pros versus cons, 401-K is still a splendid thing for the individual investor, who is typically so diversified that he/she is fraud and market-proof. My point still stands, though, that the ratio of over-the-shoulder interest and thumbing-through-earnings-reports to dollars-in-accounts is much lower than it used to be. When it cost you 100-bucks to make a trade, you did it with lots of foresight and homework. Now with 8-bucks a trade, DRIPs, and lower dollar ceilings most investors aren't on the hook for enough to ask tough questions.

In effect, those with bigger stakes and more time to study or wage proxy battles benefit from greater influence dollar-for-dollar. Those are the people to watch.

Truly, the only people who can "fail" with a diversified 401-K are those who were close to retirement and didn't throttle down to more conservative investment mixes. People like me, under-40, should be HAPPY that our dollar-cost averaging is now buying more shares and will eventually rebound with a vengeance.

Re: Where I tell Tim Rutten to get a 401k education

Karoli — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:51:12 -0000

Ike,

Thanks for your comment. While I agree that oversight is the answer, the fact is that while the SEC has been chasing after Steve Jobs for daring to backdate stock options, they've been asleep at the wheel when it comes to protecting investors as a whole, whether large or small, institutional or otherwise.

The safest 401k strategy was always to spread the risk across mutual funds, even funds in the same sector on the belief that collective wisdom of the different managers would manage the risk. Unfortunately the deregulation issues came into play with the mortgage/derivative mess, which unraveled the other markets as credit tightened.

Still, the strategy is to simply wait and begin to consider what we want the future to be. 401k investors have a tremendous amount of collective investing power, and can use it for good in a transparent, well-lit marketplace.

Re: Where I tell Tim Rutten to get a 401k education

Ike Pigott — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 23:06:46 -0000

I never went as far as to call it a Failure, but I think Rutten is stealing some of my material.

*I* have been on the record praising 401-Ks, but recognizing the Unintended Consequence. Namely, that most investors are now at play in a market with such a small personal stake in any individual company that there's virtually no personal oversight in the governance. With $100K split among some 300 companies, it's not worth my while to track every single one, nor travel to a stockholders meeting, nor be the pesky sort I would be if I had a bigger stake.

I do believe that many of the ethics issues we're having have far more to do with an oversight/funding ratio that is out of whack, and far less to do with deregulation or any particular administration in power.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

tsdivadani — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:02:37 -0000

Yeah, I would love to hear an explanation too. Anyway, I definitely see where you are coming from by bringing all views together, and am totally for that. Thanks for hearing me out. :-)

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

mobilejones — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:48:43 -0000

The supposition that allowing a hate monger to deliver a prayer will naturally result in dialogue or magical understanding is more flawed logic. I'm confident that you already know this.

There's a canyon between inviting someone to participate in an honored position during the inauguration and entertaining a dialogue or exchange of ideas. The mistake has been made. It's up to the Obama team to correct or allow the decision to cast the stain on the promise of his presidency and progressive ideals.

Enough is enough. My rights are not negotiable.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

mobilejones — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:53:56 -0000

Sorry equivocation isn't possible here. Seeking it is flawed logic.

Would you advocate equivocation for women's right to vote? For heterosexuals to marry across race? For a woman's right to choose? For any individual's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Of course not! Warren's presence is a stain on Obama's inauguration.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

mobilejones — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:23:40 -0000

The strongest Biblical case is for Christian conservatives to focus on God's Top Ten before focusing on corner cases. Biblical cases were made in the 1950s and 1960s that interracial marriage was "an abomination" and against God's law.

Give me a topic and I can make a Biblical case for multiple sides of the issue. The Religious Right would accrue more credibility if their fervor was as strong on solving issues of lying, cheating, stealing, coveting, and killing. But those are liberal issues - anti war and all that jazz.

It is their hypocrisy on choosing which issues count that strip them of their credibility. There's a book called "Jesus Wants To Save Christians" that Warren and his ilk should read. In addition, let's not forget the heavy-handed judgment in Warren's agenda when the Biblical Case forbades judgment - "Judge not, least ye be judged" and warning that "He who is without sin - cast the first stone."

Warren and the whole of the Christian Right who seek to shape our political discourse build their Biblical Cases in direct conflict with what Jesus said, did and taught. Therein lies the rub.

Finally, being loud and vocal does not equal being shrill. That's coded language and I'm sure you don't truly mean it as it sounds. The offering of an honored seat to someone with Warren's public and political aims is a slap in the face of the Gay community which supported Obama. Truly following on the many attacks directed at Gay's today there must be a line somewhere. There must be a time to say - Enough!

Anyone who supports equal rights for all people gets this. And frankly, the fact that Obama has placed Warren in this honored position scares the hell out of those of us who have been made promises by Democrats including the Clintons and continually watch as equal rights that should be "inalienable" become political fodder for trade and political theater.

Warren is a divisive voice. It's not okay to give him a bigger platform unless you agree with him. That's scary.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

Karoli — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:58:12 -0000

Okay. it's a stain. So we all go to our corners and condemn each other and
spend another four years getting nowhere until the next election when once
again the hateful many descend to defeat equality and rights once again.

That's the choice. It sounds like it's the one most will make.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

mobilejones — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:40:01 -0000

Brava Dani! Your comment is dead on. Funny running into you here. :-)

Warren isn't merely getting a seat at the table. He's being offered an honored seat.

In an interview just last week, Warren compared reproductive choice to the Holocaust and compared same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia, and he called Christians who work to advance social justice gospel "Marxism in Christian clothing." He's also stated that there are five issues that all candidates should be evaluated on -- the top three are reproductive choice, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.

These are extreme positions not merely differing positions. Religious extremism whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish doesn't recognize the rights of "all the people". I'm sure that Warren is charming and charismatic in person which is why he attracts a large audience. Many unsavory actors on the world stage have been charming and charismatic, while also spreading hate and intolerance.

Simply put: this decision by Obama and/or his team is a gaff. If Warren needs a seat at the table, then use him as an adviser for how Christian extremism can be minimized in the USA.

I often agree with you, Karoli on policy and political positions. This time you picked the unfortunate and wrong side.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

Karoli — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:34:13 -0000

I don't agree with him. Nearly every voice with regard to this issue is
divisive. When I use the word "shrill" I am specifically referring to the
calls to disinvite him, to condemn his participation. Like it or not,
Warren represents the beliefs of a big chunk of the people in this country
who do espouse hypocritical and contradictory views. I'm married to one of
them. I've done my share of shouting about it.

We have spent the last eight years *not* talking about this stuff. It's
been shouted, it's been shoved down our throats, but we haven't had a
dialogue. Now we have a chance to aim at reconciliation.

Do I agree with Warren's views? No. Do I endorse them? No. Do I wish beyond all that he had simply said that he endorsed civil unions and left it at that? You betcha. But he didn't, and now he's the center of the first
controversy around Obama.

I do note that the larger role in the inauguration ceremony has been given
to Joseph Lowery, who is also a pastor and who will give the closing speech.
Yet there is no talk of that choice as one being divisive. If Warren is a
slap to the GLBT community (and I certainly believe he is perceived that
way), then Lowery is a slap to evangelicals. So we've all been slapped. Now what?

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

Karoli — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:02:20 -0000

Both of you make valid points. I'm frankly at a loss to understand Warren's
comments in the beliefnet interview, particularly in light of the
clarifications, though he does at least make a Biblical case for his views
in the clarifying statements.

I will probably be making another post on this as soon as I sort out what
the heck is going on here. I still think disinviting or being shrill is a
bad idea.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

Karoli — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:30:40 -0000

Okay, I've now found the full clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... and watched it twice. To summarize, what he says is: a) divorce is the biggest threat to the family; b) civil unions are the way past discriminating against any member of society; and c) he does not support a redefinition of marriage.

In support of his third point, he cites incest and pedophilia (though it's not pedophilia as much as it is marriage between older man; younger woman, which is not necessarily pedophilia) as two other instances where marriage has not been redefined to be inclusive.

And then he is asked by the interviewer whether he equates incest and pedophilia with gay marriage, which is where he makes the fatal mistake, which is to say "yes, absolutely".

While I understood the 'yes, absolutely' to relate to the marriage definition (which he sort of qualifies with his next sentence), it was clearly open to lots of interpretation, and he should definitely clarify what he meant by that.

I can understand how anyone would feel outraged by the comparison. I was taken aback by it too. However, I don't believe he meant it as a statement that gays were the same as pedophiles and those committing incest. I think what he was saying is that they all fall into an area that has not been covered by 'traditional marriage' as defined by the Bible.

With that said, it was an ill-advised and ambiguous response to a pretty clear question. I would love to hear him explain his response.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

tsdivadani — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:18:12 -0000

I sent this to you in Twitter DM, but here is a clip from Rachel Maddow's show last night discussing Warren. In it she plays a clip of an interview Warren in which he makes the comparison:

http://is.gd/cA1v

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

Karoli — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:00:53 -0000

I haven't been able to find the complete record of those remarks. I'm looking for them, and want to see them in context, because they fly in the face of what he's said in the past. I will say this: There are many, many pastors out there that I view as haters. Warren is not one of them, which is why I'd like to see the full context of the remarks before going on about it. Warren is a guy that stood in front of an uber-conservative congregation a few years back and called for repentance over what the church has done to AIDS/HIV sufferers by ostracizing them. That doesn't square with the remarks you're quoting above.

More after I find the full context.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

tsdivadani — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:47:19 -0000

As one of the progressives to whom this open letter is written, I feel compelled to respond. :-)

I absolutely understand what is trying to be achieved here. But you have to draw the line somewhere. It's one thing to have a preacher or minister simply say homosexuality is wrong because of religious beliefs or what the Bible says. It's another to say hateful things like equating homosexuality with incest or pedophilia. How does that make Warren a "man with heart for all people"? That to me is an example of a raging homophobe, even if he did not come off that way when you met him.

Obama is approaching civil discourse the wrong way here, in my opinion. He is in essence saying that it's ok to be public in saying these sorts of things. While you can't stop people from believing what they do, you shouldn't reward them for their hate and bigotry either.

By allowing Warren to give his blessing to this new Presidency, Obama is in essence saying it's ok to be open with your hatred as Warren is. That it's acceptable to say the things he has said. This move is dividing us even more, and that is not the fault of progressives.

My two pennies on the matter. :-)

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

hardaway — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:49:54 -0000

Thank God you write for me, Karoli. I was thinking the same thing this morning as I was listening to NPR. We can't just say "screw you because you don't believe what I believe" or we are just as bad as they are. Either we believe in Obama's vision of uniting the country and being post-partisan, or we don't. Post partisan doesn't mean converting everyone to our opinions.

And you are right. Warren will be praying, not making policy. As a Jew, I listen to people pray to Jesus all the time and just ignore it and understand that I am not the majority.

"Disagree without being disagreeable" -- he said that yesterday.

Re: Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

briantroy — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:31:56 -0000

Great post Karoli - nothing is gained from the extremes digging in their heels and refusing to agree that they disagree - and yet remain civil and united where there is opportunity for agreement.

Obama's change was never about denouncing conservatism and excluding them from the conversation. It was never about going all progressive/liberal all the time and vilifying those who disagree.
It was - and continues to be - about changing the tone, inclusiveness and goal of the conversation. In the absence of conversation hate flourishes.