Monday Mashup Again (10/5/09)

(And I also posted here.)

The last item in this post pertains to a J.D. Mullane blog post in which he tells us that he’s “keeping it local” from now on (his blog post was dated September 19th).

Well, as noted here, he criticized David Letterman over his staff indiscretions on September 30th.

In my 9/22 post, I gave Mullane about two weeks before he got bored with “keeping it local.” However, he ended up not even making it that far (unless New York City is now considered to be “local”).

Well, there is a bit of good news here; at least Mullane’s paper remembered to publish an Op-Ed section today, which they mysteriously forgot to do yesterday.

Repug U.S. Senator John Thune of South Dakota called for using about $330 billion of unused TARP funds (out of about $700 billion total) to pay down the debt in this Murdoch Street Journal Op-Ed today.

Well, based on this story, I think the funds should be used instead for shoring up unemployment insurance (not just in South Dakota, but across the country…the percent of unemployment in Thune’s state is lower than other areas of the U.S., but the state’s benefit fund is running out).

And the money could be put to other uses; as noted here, an updated version of the WPA (including more infrastructure projects) would end up putting a lot more people to work than tax cuts and state stabilization funds ever could (though the latter is important, I realize).

Yes, it’s important to balance the budget. But not in the midst of a crisis (of course, Thune, being a member of the political party that dug this hole to begin with, will continue his little exercise in reality avoidance as long as he can until and unless the voters of his state come to their senses and send him packing next year).

I really didn’t say much about the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China last Thursday, but I was reminded to do so after reading this Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday, claiming that, between Mao Tse-tung and Deng Xiaoping, “Deng is the leader to celebrate.”

To me, that’s like having to choose between a brutal dictator and one who was only slightly less repressive.

I am not a scholar in these matters, I readily admit. And Deng does deserve a good bit of credit for China’s economic development.

But I think it’s more than a little sad that people like Mao and Deng are considered to be synonymous with China’s development, while Zhao Ziyang serves as little more than a historical footnote.

As noted here…

Deng was originally Zhao's mentor and appointed him to carry out economic reforms, but Zhao criticizes Deng's idea of political reform as merely "a kind of administrative reform." What Zhao describes as Deng's beliefs have since become the conventional wisdom among China's top leaders: "Deng believed that a precondition of reform was an upholding of the Communist Party's one-party rule. . . . Deng was particularly opposed to a multiparty system, tripartite separation of powers, and the parliamentary system of Western nations."

This is more than a history lesson. China's current leaders, including President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, owe their careers to the political coup that took place in 1989. Mr. Hu indirectly benefited when he was praised for his bloody crackdown on protests in Tibet. Mr. Wen, who once considered Zhao a mentor and accompanied him to Tiananmen Square to speak to students before the crackdown, seems not to have been influenced by Zhao's political beliefs. But this generation will not run China forever.

And this tells us of Zhao’s memoir published earlier this year; it is to be devoutly hoped that his dream of genuine political reform in China is kept alive, long after the current leaders of his country who stifle it utterly disintegrate into the dust.

Finally, I need to “go rogue,” if you will, and stray off-topic somewhat.

As we left Sunday services yesterday (yes, a filthy, unkempt liberal blogger type such as yours truly actually goes to church), I noticed a sign in the vestibule advertising a screening of the film "The Jeweler's Shop," based on a book written by Karol Wojtyla about three marriages from a spiritual perspective (Wojtyla, of course, would eventually become this guy). The screening will take place this Friday at the parish (I’m not mentioning the name of our parish for a reason that will be evident soon – besides, the issue isn’t confined to just here).

I’m recounting this because the sign advertising the film said, "Who would think a pope would author a movie starring Burt Lancaster?" (one of the film’s stars).

Wow. What a crappy attitude.

And why exactly is that, I’ve wondered.

Well, when you read this Wikipedia article, the answer becomes plainly evident…

Lancaster was an unabashed liberal, who frequently spoke out with support for racial minorities. He was also instrumental in the formation of many liberal groups, through financial support. At one point, he was rumored to be a member of the Communist Party, because of his involvement in many liberal causes. He was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War and political movements such as McCarthyism, and he helped pay for the successful defense of a soldier accused of fragging another soldier during the war.[5] In 1968, Lancaster actively supported the presidential candidacy of antiwar Senator Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota, and frequently spoke on his behalf in the Democratic primaries. In 1985, Lancaster, a longtime supporter of gay rights, joined the fight against AIDS after his close friend, Rock Hudson, contracted the disease. He campaigned for Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

(Oh, and by the way, yesterday was “Respect Life Sunday” – I guess “respect” doesn’t extend to those with whose ideology you disagree.)

Well, I think the person who created that sign is at least a little ignorant of the history of our faith; as noted here…

The Catholic Church exercised a prominent role in shaping America's labor movement. From the onset of significant immigration in the 1840s, the Church in the United States was predominantly urban, with both its leaders and congregants usually of the laboring classes. Over the course of the second half of the nineteenth century, nativism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-unionism coalesced in Republican politics, and Catholics gravitated toward unions and the Democratic Party.

…

More recent examples of catholic social justice in action is the Campaign for Human Development created in part as an outgrowth of the work of Msgr. Geno Baroni, who founded the National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs (NCUEA). NCUEA spawned, funded and trained hundreds of parish, neighborhood and community based organizations, organizers, credit unions, and local programs. Baroni's Catholic social justice in action included notable proteges, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-OH, currently the longest serving woman in Congress and Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-MD. President Barack Obama's first community organizing project was funded by the Campaign for Human Development.[2]

OMIGOD! The Catholic Church sponsored a community organizing project for that socialist, liberal, closet-Kenyan president of ours?? HORRORS!!

Well, despite that, I hope to watch the film one day because I’m sure it will be illuminating. Even if the movie does star Burt Lancaster.

(Actually, given the fact that Lancaster so devoutly supported causes pertaining to social justice, I believe that Pope John Paul II should have felt fortunate that the actor helped him to tell his story.)