Summations Only

"Whatever that is" is whatever you want it to be.One of the advantages of Protestant evangelicalism is that by "being moved by the Holy Spirit" Christian teaching becomes whatever you already believe.One of the advantages of "Biblical literalism" is that big mess of contradictions can be used to support whatever you already believe.'Course Lewis was Catholic which supposedly does have an unambiguous body of defined teachings, but I notice Catholics are no less likely to align their "Christian teachings" with their beliefs than Protestants are.

Hello, Hyro.Sure; the rightwing rage machine has painted Pelosi as some kind of left wing extremist for so long that I'm sure many do consider her to be too far to the left.What about you? What has she actually done that is "off the page"? Surely pushing through Obamacare can't be considered all that far left?Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Sorry for the delayed response. That is probably true. My point is that no intelligent conversation can use "Pelosi" and "far left" in the same sentence, except perhaps to mock the delusions of the current US right. And this is what I mean. Pelosi isn't all that far left. Compared to the political establishment, she's a centrist. I would label her as"center-left", although others on this board have called her "center-right". Which might be more accurate, since polls consistently show that the opinions of the people on the ground are far closer to "the Squad" on most issues than they are to the Establishment Liberals.At any rate, Pelosi and the rest of the Liberal Establishment have always been challenged by the Left. I actually read the left wing press (hint: that doesn't include The New York Times or CNN), and criticism of the centrism of Pelosi, Obama, and the Clintons have been a long staple. I disagree here, although I admit we may have to wait until the screaming stops and the dust settles before we can look back to see whether I'm right.We have to remember that we don't have political parties in the US in the same sense as they exist in, say, Europe. Because of the extremely decentralized way the parties here are run (literally anyone can register for one the parties and then run in that party's primaries) and the effects of single-member-first-past-the-post districts, the party organizations are unable to effectively maintain any kind of consistent ideological discipline.As a result, the Democratic Party is a coalition of different groups (undoubtably with a lot of overlap of members) with different agendas. In most ways the different goals can complement each other, and sometimes some groups actually share the same goals. But sometimes goals can oppose one another.As a result, the Democrats "program", as far as there is one, is a consensus based on compromises each faction makes in order to be able to work together to achieve at least some of the common goals.What is happening is that the coalition has changed. The progressive, social justice left has much more power in the coalition than the did before 2016 (in my opinion, this more accurately reflects the composition of the Democrats' base). This gives them a lot more influence on the actual policy positions of the party. As a result, a new consensus is being formed as the various factions have to grapple with new compromises, especially the center-left Establishment Liberals.What makes this so messy, of course, is that I doubt most of the participants consciously realize this is what they are doing. And, of course, even in deliberate negotiations each side is going to resist making more concessions than they have to.To make it more complicated, there's the pragmatic politics aspect. The establishment center is terrified that the Left's radicalism is going to turn off voters and cost them elections. At the same time, the Left is terrified that the center's "same old, same old, nothing ever changes" approach will turn away voters and cost them elections.That's the way I've been seeing this since 2016, anyway. However, I do worry that if this internal fight carries on too long, it will hurt the Democrats in 2020.Edited by Chiroptera, : Changed subtitle.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

My mistake. Lewis was so close to Tolkien that I just assumed he'd be Catholic too.

From the New York Times: ‘The Squad’ Rankles, but Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez Make Peace for NowDespite the headline, the article has very little to say about the current rapprochement between the Establishmen Liberal and Social Justice Progressive wings. It appears to be mostly background about the spotlight being shone on Ocasio- Cortez, Pressley, Omar, and Tlaib.Enjoy.

Yeah, but a few years ago I also would have thought that if a country were a "shit-hole" country, we'd be more inclined to accept refugees from there.I guess not when you realize that "shit -hole" and "rat infested" mean "black people".

This morning's column by Paul Krugman: A Racist Stuck in the PastTrump's characterization of Cummings' district as a rat-infested hellhole is nothing new; Krugman points out that racists have long used the problems of US inner cities to claim that there's something wrong with non-white people.'Course non-racists point out that racists never can get cause-and-effect straight, and claim that most of the problems with the inner cities are due more to the lack of educational and economic opportunities.And sure enough, even as the conditions of American cities have improved, the conditions of rural, white people areas - you know, Trump country - have deteriorated due to... wait for it... declining educational and economic opportunities. Krugman's take-away:

Sorry for the delay, Hyro. Yes, Maryland's Seventh District includes parts of Baltimore. It also includes parts of Columbia, which has been rated as one of the safest communities in the US.The 7th rates above median for average income among Congressional districts, and rates 2nd among black majority districts for both average income and level of education.If the 7th was white majority, would Trump have described it as a rat-infested failure?In fact, if Cummings was a white Republican, he'd probably be praise for the awesome job he's doing. The point is that Trump doesn't call white majority rural areas rat-infested hellholes. By strange coincidence, Trump doesn't call these areas rat infested hellholes.

Sorry for the delayed response, Faith. When I read this I spewed coffee all over my tablet, and it's only now dry enough to use.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

I didn't read the live blog, so I can't speak for what was and was not said.I do recall though, during the transition before Trump's inauguration, Krugman predicted the markets would react badly to Trump's election.They didn't. Unlike conservative economists, though, Krugman admitted he was wrong and explain the assumptions that went into his prediction and why those assumptions were incorrect.Pretty much what I expect from an authority on a subject if they are to retain my respect.

I don't know how much of what Trump does or says is deliberate. It's perfectly plausible that Trump sees a black person and instinctively thinks "rat-infested hell hole" and starts saying things without giving any thought to it. It's plausible that Trump sees a black member of Congress and just reflexively thinks, "she should go back to her own country," and starts tweeting without further thought. It's possible that "MS-13" is just his automatic reaction when the southern border is mentioned.At any rate, Trump constantly says incorrect or exaggerated things that have traditionally been believed by racists. He constantly says things that have racist implications. He constantly pushes for policies that have a disproportionate impact on minority communities. His campaign plays on racist fears. He is supported by racist organizations.We don't have to look at each statement he makes as if it were on isolated instance and wonder whether it is racist. Trump shows a clear pattern of being racist, and if he says something that could be construed as racist then it is entirely appropriate to assume it is racist. Not only is the accusation not inappropriate in this case, but I suspect that the only people who are offended by calling Trump a racist are the racists who support Trump's racism.

Just an aside, all officers of the federal government (and most state governments) have to take the same oath.I did when I was part of the Peace Corps.

But what the Left says about Israel does make them anti- Semitic, right?

Again, I'm not interested in examining the one statement on its own merits as if it were a single isolated example. Trump has, since the beginning of his campaign, since his hysterical rants about the Central Park Five, since his own discriminatory policies in his realestate dealings, has shown an unmistakable pattern of not just "tendencies" but of being an open racist.And it goes deeper than that. He has had every opportunity to show that he's not a racist. When accused of racism, a non-racist would (perhaps after the hurt feelings) realize that as a member of the dominant demographic group they are not the best judge of what is racist, or what is misonogynisic, or homophobic or Islamophobic.A non-racist would realize that they don't live in a world of constant small insults and indignities, and a non-racist would realize that what insults he is aware of aren't indications of missed opportunities due to unfair discrimination.When accused of racism (or misogyny, or homophobia, or Islamophobia), a non-racist would make a good faith effort to understand why the other person sees their actions as racist and would make an effort to change their behavior so that world in which the victim of constant insults and petty humilities would be a little more comfortable.Trump doesn't do any of that. He seems to not care at all what members of groups who have long faced discrimination think of him, at least not beyond being outraged that someone doesn't think he's the most wonderful person in the world. He certainly makes no effort to change his behavior; instead, he tells other people how they're supposed to think of him.To me, this is evidence by itself that Trump is racist. Furthermore, I would say that his lack of interest in why he's being called racist is, in fact, racism.Edited by Chiroptera, : Ha ha ha! "Petty humidities"!

My woke mind drew the connection when I saw that Elijah Cummings is black and that he represents a black majority district. Context matters.I drew the connection when he told four members of Congress who were members of minority groups to go back to where they came from, was told that this was seen as racist, and then turned around and repeated essentially the same thing to another person of color.Not only does context matter, but, to repeat, when someone is called out for being racist and does nothing to try to understand why it would be seen as racist and then continues to engage in the behaviors that are seen as racist, that make him a racist.- I know what he's saying. He's telling Cummings to shut up, and he deliberately chose offensive, insulting, and provocative language to do it. That's what he was saying to Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, Tlaib, and Omar: he was telling them to shut up and he deliberately chose an offensive way to say it.He doesn't have to tell people to shut up. He doesn't have to tell people to go back to places. He doesn't have to insult people. He does and says things that don't need to be done or said. He creates his own problems for himself. And if it is so important to him that he continues to be an ass hole, then he deserves the scorn that he's earned. And if it is so important to him that he continues to be an ass hole even though it makes him look like a racist, then that makes him a racist.Edited by Chiroptera, : Misspelled a name.