Chicago Cardinal refuses to condemn comparison of Obama to Hitler, Stalin

My God.  Just when you thought the Catholic Church couldn't sink any lower.

This past Sunday, an Illinois Catholic Bishop gave a homily comparing President Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

“Hitler and Stalin at their better moments would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care,” Jenky said over the weekend. “In clear violation of our constitutional rights, president Obama with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

Yes, I remember when Obama was a member of the Hitler Youth as a child.  Oh, right...

But oh, it gets better.

When asked about the comments today, Chicago's Catholic Cardinal George refused to condemn the words - hell, he wouldn't even comment on them - then went off on an anti-Obama rant, thus signaling his tacit approval of the comments (he was basically saying that the Bishop wasn't entirely wrong).

Chicago Francis Cardinal George declined to comment on the comparison but echoed some of the frustration Jenky expressed.

“This is the first time in the history of our country where our very own government has told our Catholic institutions ‘If you’re going to operate in public, you can’t operate in a Catholic way, you have to give up your Catholic identity,’” George told CBS 2’s Mike Parker on Thursday.

And just what Catholic way is the cardinal talking about?  Enabling the serial rape of small children for decades, and still not coming clean about it?  Is that the Catholic way that Cardinal George is so proud of?  It really steams me when Catholic leaders think they actually have any remaining moral authority after enabling the rape of children.

And Jenky has some chutzpah claiming that President Obama won't tolerate any competition with the state on health care and social services.  The Catholic church, via their Catholic Charities, sucks at the federal teat to the tune of nearly $3 billion dollars a year, of your money.  Somehow I think the Catholic church is doing just fine competing with the federal government - if you can call a $3bn taxpayer subsidy from the US government "competition."

And while the Catholic Church is apparently fine comparing President Obama to Hitler and Stalin, and the serial rape of small children, they do not tolerate nuns.  This gets quite interesting in fact.  You see, the nuns' sins were, among other things, disagreeing with the bishops' opposition to health care reform.

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.” During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it — support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care.

Did you catch that? The Catholic bishops "are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals." Authentic teachers of faith. So what the bishops say, goes. So when Bishop Jenky said that President Obama was like Hitler and Stalin, his words were authentic, because you don't question a bishop.

So the nuns question bishops for trying to stop poor people from getting health insurance, and the nuns get punished for it. And the Cardinal refuses to question the bishop for comparing the President of the United States to Hitler and Stalin because - wait for it - the President wants to help poor people get health insurance.

Anyone else see a pattern? Read the rest of this post...

Citi shareholders voted against executive pay plans

In what could be an embarrassing decision for troubled Citibank, the executive management can rest knowing that the "say on pay" vote is nothing more than a suggestion. On the campaign trail in 2008 Obama promoted this idea and it was eventually included in the Dodd-Frank legislation. The concept of an advisory vote has never been appealing to me since the track record is not impressive.

Let's also think back to the fact that all of the US banks - Goldman Sachs included - were dead following the crisis and had to be rescued by US taxpayers. There were pay restrictions since they all had to be saved but that never really worked since there were so many loopholes and exit possibilities. Some of the biggest gamblers of other people's money (Goldman) managed to slip by virtually untouched, laughing all the way to the bonus payouts.

So besides some public embarrassment for the incompetent Citi executive team, this is not a defining moment. Citi CEO Pandit received $39 million last year, despite never having to pay back anything that he made when Citi was busy booking garbage business during the run up to crashing in 2008. A one time bonus last year valued at $34 million was rather extraordinary considering that sorry state of affairs for Citi.

If the bank could shove through something that outrageous last year, why should they care about an advisory vote this year? Even if the bank chooses to accept the vote, it's only a matter of time until they find a sneaky way around it and fork over mega pay for their team. Read the rest of this post...

Will an upstart French mobile carrier best Apple, and the market?

Like millions of other people in France, I recently made the move over to Free Mobile. Free was already known and loved by customers for offering internet services that scrapped the long term contracts and allowed customers to buy month to month. They also helped drive down the price which is now highly competitive in France.

Since Free moved into the mobile market, they have been flooded with new customers who have scrapped the €70 per month subscription rate for the €16 or €20 rate. (It's €16 if you are a Free internet customer, €20 if you are not.) Even with some temporary hiccups to the service - mainly network stress in the early evening hours - it's a no-brainer to move over to Free.

Forbes has an interesting read about Free Mobile and its potential impact on the iPhone market. The theory is that without the subsidized pricing for the iPhone, Apple may lose market share to Android or Windows phones as customers jump on the low monthly price and cheaper phones. The iPhone sold by Free Mobile starts at €479 and goes up to €785. Meanwhile, there are plenty of cheaper mobile phone options that aren't iPhones and really, they're not that bad.

Will this model model move to other countries and will customers choose other phones that are cheaper? I've used a Windows phone and while it's not as nice, it's decent enough for most people and it's a lot less expensive. The main problem today is the limited number of apps compared to the iPhone. Personally I can deal with that if I'm saving this much money both upfront on the phone and over time with this new service. Read the rest of this post...

France ready to send Sarkozy into retirement

The first round of elections will be this weekend and while the current president, Nicolas Sarkozy, will likely make it to the second round, it's doubtful that he will win. If anything, this election is more about him than it is with anyone else. His primary competitor is the Socialist François Hollande, who has the charisma of Michael Dukakis. The left is about as excited for Hollande as Democrats were for Dukakis back in the day.

Fortunately for Hollande, Sarkozy has a very limited appeal in the broader population. His flashy style was never well received by the conservative country and his inability to get along with others has not helped either. One gets the impression that he was the kid in the playground who wouldn't let anyone else play in "his" sandbox. The economic crisis is certainly an issue, but it's just one of many reasons why voters will likely send him away.

One change that is likely to occur with an Hollande victory is a move away from austerity, which is clobbering Europe and the UK. He may not be an exciting candidate, but Hollande is aware of the problems triggered by austerity, and will break with those failed policies.

Assuming an Hollande victory, will there be any significant changes? Changes yes, but nothing extreme for most people. Much like other countries, it's increasingly difficult to find big differences between the so-called left and the so-called right in France. (In France we're talking of the center-left and center-right. The "left" or the "right" is generally what people consider the extremes, such as Le Pen on the right or the Communists on the left.) There is a lot of discontent among many that the old party lines of a few decades ago are too blurred, much like they are in the US.

More on the upcoming French elections via Reuters. Read the rest of this post...

Frequent flyer strips naked to protest TSA

I recall an elderly French traveler doing this in the US shortly after the excessive policies started. The TSA policies are so ridiculously over the top and have not made us any safer. They have protected American flyers from dangerous cupcake icing They harass youngsters right up to seniors without regard for common sense. Even worse, the porno-scanners are not effective beyond lining the pockets of lobbyists like Chertoff. If anything, it's a surprise that this doesn't happen more often.

With the latest mission creep by the TSA, they're now doing searches on buses, trains and yes, even roads. What's also unfortunate is that the political class is too afraid of changing course from this bad policy for fear of being called weak on terrorism. What a sad joke. Read the rest of this post...

Vatican opens new front in its war on women with attack on American nuns

While the GOP continues its war on women, the Vatican, which has been in the forefront of that war for centuries, has set its sights on American nuns. Their "sin"? Among other things, not being sufficiently anti-gay. From the NY Times:

The Vatican has appointed an American bishop to rein in the largest and most influential group of Catholic nuns in the United States, saying that an investigation found that the group had “serious doctrinal problems.” 

The Vatican’s assessment, issued on Wednesday, said that members of the group, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, had challenged church teaching on homosexuality and the male-only priesthood, and promoted “radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith.”

The sisters were also reprimanded for making public statements that “disagree with or challenge the bishops, who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals.”  During the debate over the health care overhaul in 2010, American bishops came out in opposition to the health plan, but dozens of sisters, many of whom belong to the Leadership Conference, signed a statement supporting it — support that provided crucial cover for the Obama administration in the battle over health care.

The nuns weren't expecting this broadside from the men who run the church:

Word of the Vatican’s action took the group completely by surprise, Sister Sanders said. She said that the group’s leaders were in Rome on Wednesday for what they thought was a routine annual visit to the Vatican when they were informed of the outcome of the investigation, which began in 2008. 

“I’m stunned,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by sisters. Her group was also cited in the Vatican document, along with the Leadership Conference, for focusing its work too much on poverty and economic injustice, while keeping “silent” on abortion and same-sex marriage.

And, to complete the homophobic circle, the Archbishop of Seattle, J. Peter Sartain, who is leading the jihad against the nuns, is also leading the effort to repeal Washington State's new marriage equality law. But, this past weekend, a number of parishes rejected the Archbishop's edict to collect signatures for an anti-marriage referendum. In fact, via Igor Volsky at Think Progress, we learned that one Catholic priest got a standing ovation from his parishioners by announcing he wouldn't participate in the effort to gather signatures for an anti-marriage petition. Read the rest of this post...

Romney to give commencement at Falwell's Liberty U

Romney 2002:

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."

Romney 2012:

"I believe people understand that I'm firmly pro-life," he said in a debate that same month.

Keep in mind that this isn't just a speech. It's the commencement address. Meaning, you get a speaker that you know clicks with your values. And Mitt Romney does not click with any of the values held by the Jerry Falwell crowd.

Now sure, the Mormon leadership clicks quite well with the Falwell crowd - both are extreme agents of intolerance. So on a basic hate level, the religious right and the Mormons have a lot in common. But not only is Mitt Romney untrue to the religious right, he hasn't exactly toed the Mormon line on gay rights or abortion over the years (which is typical Romney trying to have it both ways). Sure, he does toe the line now that's he's trying to win the nomination of a political party over-run by extreme conservatives. But historically Romney has been uber pro-gay and pro-choice.

Then what the heck is he doing speaking at Liberty University?

The answer is in the invite. The religious right is about as true to Christianity (and their own professed values) as Mitt Romney is to any of his previously professed beliefs. The very fact that the Falwell crowd would invite Mitt Romney, an arch liberal who shares none of their values, a man who once claimed to be more pro-gay then Ted Kennedy, to give a speech only given by those who share their values, shows why in the end Romney and the religious right are really the perfect fit.

Both are family values posers. Read the rest of this post...

Just try getting a doctor's appointment in America on the spur of the moment

We're number one, my ass.  Just try geting a doctor's appointment in this country on the spur of the moment when something goes wrong.  Just try.

An elderly family member has had some issues with their leg the past few weeks.  It started with extreme pain, anywhere between five-out-of-ten and the occasional nine-out-of-ten on the pain scale, and has been going on for a few weeks now.

Day 7, the relative figured the pain wasn't going away, so they made a doctor's appointment... for five days hence (that's all that was available).

Day 10, a Saturday, the pain increases to nine-out-of-ten non-stop (felt like a knife going into their leg), so they called a doctor friend of the family who said it could be a blood clot, call their regular doctor now.  So they called the doctor they were to see on Monday, told him another doctor feared it might be a blood clot.  He said to take some aspirin, elevate the leg and come in on Monday.

That night, the leg swelled, and a rash or bruising developed in an odd linear pattern.  So we went to the emergency room at 11 o'clock at night instead of going to Easter services at church. The doctor there said it looked like cellulitis, started an IV drip of antibiotics, and gave them antibiotic pills to start taking at home, and said if it gets any worse, come back immediately. Otherwise, see your regular doctor on Monday to see if the antibiotics were working, because sometimes they don't.

Understandably, the relative wasn't too thrilled to see the doctor who 1) gave them an appointment 5 days hence for a serious infection, and 2) told them to take some aspirin and wait two days, for a serious infection.  So they canceled the appointment with him and tried to make an appointment with another doctor.

Good luck.  No one was available.  Finally they were able to get one doctor to squeeze them in the following day, Tuesday.  On Tuesday, the doctor confirmed the infection, but also said other just as bad things might be at play, and there was a risk of a blood clot.  So, we wait another day, and on Wednesday we try to call a doctor friend of the family who specializes in infectious diseases.  They're not in, so we leave a message.  Twenty four hours later, no response.  We call that doctor again on Thursday and ask when the next appointment is available, we're told June 15.  Today is April 19.  That's two months from now.  The family member, appropriately, responded, "I'll be dead by June 15."

We're number one!

So, we're now trying to find another specialist who might be available sometime before mid-summer who can see whether this cellulitis is a) responding to the antibiotics, and b) not turning into a deadly blood clot.  I told the relative that if we don't get an appointment today, we're going back to the emergency room, to hell with the cost.  Their insurance is impeccable and will cover everything anyway.

And we wonder why the elderly routinely go to the emergency room for medical care.

We already have rationing in this country.  Either because you have no insurance and can't afford the treatment, or because you have insurance and still can't afford the copay, or because you have insurance and can't get a doctor to see you without weeks of wait.

In France, I've always been able to see a doctor within hours of calling.  And of course, in France the cost of the doctor's visit and/or emergency room visit is in the $30 to $40 range.

Yes, we have some of the greatest health care in the world in this country - so long as you don't actually need it. Read the rest of this post...

TSA humiliates 95 year old Air Force Major, $300 missing

If only these stories weren't so common. Is it really making America safer when we're harassing elderly Americans and then having their hard earned cash go missing? Maybe someone at the TSA thinks this behavior is providing some benefit, but really, this is going nowhere and only hurting the country. If anything, these actions only prove that the bad guys have won.

This is disgraceful. It's even more of a disgrace that the political class finds it acceptable.

"When I was patted down, I've never before been touched in every part of my body before," Woodward said.

As the search went on, the couple — both widowed who met a few years ago at a bridge game and fell in love — became increasingly concerned about missing their flight.

Finally, they were released and told to retrieve their belongings. But only four bins were handed over to them. When Petti inquired about his $300, a senior security official was called over. Petti says this officer insinuated that they were mistaken about the missing cash, instructing the two to take off their shoes again, check their pockets again. "When I told him we were going to miss our flight he asked me if I was objecting or refusing his request." Petti says. "I said: 'No, I'd do anything I was asked, I would just like to know where my $300 went.' "

Read the rest of this post...

Chomsky: U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control

I'm approaching a short trip, so posting will be light. But I want to put this up before I head out. Not that this — the headline statement — is surprising, but that it's said out loud.

This is from a recent set of pieces by Noam Chomsky printed at Alternet. I believe these are excepted from his new book, Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance, a collection of commentaries on U.S. politics and policies, written between 2007 and 2011.

The piece at Alternet is in two parts. Its subject is America's self-inflicted decline and covers a lot of topics — George Kennan and the 1948 foreign policy decision; Vietnam; Iraq; South American democracy; China; the twins Israel & Palestine; and Iran. Here's Part 1; and here's Part 2.

This is from near the end of Part 2. It deals with Iran and includes some of the conclusion (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

Let us turn finally to the third of the leading issues addressed in the establishment journals cited earlier, the “threat of Iran.” Among elites and the political class this is generally taken to be the primary threat to world order -- though not among populations.

In Europe, polls show that Israel is regarded as the leading threat to peace. In the MENA [Middle East/North Africa] countries, that status is shared with the U.S., to the extent that in Egypt, on the eve of the Tahrir Square uprising, 80% felt that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons. The same polls found that only 10% regard Iran as a threat -- unlike the ruling dictators, who have their own concerns. ...

Why exactly is Iran regarded as such a colossal threat? The question is rarely discussed, but it is not hard to find a serious answer -- though not, as usual, in the fevered pronouncements. The most authoritative answer is provided by the Pentagon and the intelligence services in their regular reports to Congress on global security. They report that Iran does not pose a military threat. Its military spending is very low even by the standards of the region, minuscule of course in comparison with the U.S. ...

It makes very good sense to try to prevent Iran from joining the nuclear weapons states, including the three that have refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel, India, and Pakistan, all of which have been assisted in developing nuclear weapons by the U.S., and are still being assisted by them. ...

[But] the primary threat to the U.S. and Israel is that Iran might deter their free exercise of violence. A further threat is that the Iranians clearly seek to extend their influence to neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan, and beyond as well.

Those “illegitimate” acts are called “destabilizing” (or worse). In contrast, forceful imposition of U.S. influence halfway around the world contributes to “stability” and order, in accord with traditional doctrine about who owns the world.

Then, after discussing the U.S. rule about coastal waters (we can come near yours; you can't come near ours), we find this (natural) conclusion:

This “classic security dilemma” makes sense, again, on the assumption that the U.S. has a right to control most of the world, and that U.S. security requires something approaching absolute global control.

Who can argue that this is how the U.S. and its military-minded supporters think? Chomsky and the militarists differ only in their justification (or lack of it) for these acts.

This is, after all, the fact assumed by American Exceptionalism, the belief that rocks many domestic boats, swells many heads with pride. In fact, this idea is almost mainstream, and usually applauded in its more carefully worded forms.

Noam Chomsky is not a popular guy, but (or because) it's hard to say where he's wrong. Read through and see if you don't agree with most or all of what he says.

GP

(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
  Read the rest of this post...

Ledbetter slams Romney for his uncertainty about helping women get equal pay for equal work

We wouldn't want the government helping women get equal pay for equal work. From Laura Bassett at HuffPo:

Lilly Ledbetter, the woman who famously sued her employer after discovering she was being paid less than her male colleagues and who inspired the first piece of legislation President Barack Obama signed upon entering office, fired back against likely GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney after he declined to say whether he would have signed the bill into law.

"It took me more than 20 years to get an answer for the injustices that I suffered as an unfairly paid worker, so I know what it's like to wait for justice. I know what it's like to fight for justice. But Mitt Romney told me and millions of other women that he couldn't commit to fighting with us or for us," Ledbetter told reporters Wednesday.

In 1998, Ledbetter sued her employer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber, for paying her significantly less over the course of her career than her less experienced male colleagues who were doing similar work. The Supreme Court ultimately sided against Ledbetter because she had waited 6 years to file suit, far exceeding the 180-day statute of limitations.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act extends that window, giving women more time in which to sue their employers for wage discrimination.

Read the rest of this post...

UN criticizes Syria for failing to comply with cease fire

The UN is still trying to get the ceasefire back on track but it also still involves unarmed observers. The observer model has failed to deliver in Syria despite multiple attempts though with Russia on Assad's side, the options remain limited for the UN. With violence by the Syrian government continuing - even increasing - it's important for the world community to stay involved. More from The Guardian on the faltering peace process in Syria. Read the rest of this post...