First, here is quickie written by By Bill entitled 'Son of a Gun'.
Not all Americans love guns, but the ones who love guns really love guns. When gun massacres are in the news, they buy guns. And according to the New York Daily News:
“Violent baby names are on the rise as gun-lusting Americans pull the trigger on names like Magnum, Shooter and Caliber… The most popular of the macho monikers is Gunner, which 1,500 U.S. babies received last year. Gunner means ‘bold warrior’ in Swedish. Other names gaining in popularity for boys are more specifically gun-related: Trigger, Shooter, Caliber, Magnum and Pistol, plus names inspired by gun manufacturers like Barrett, Remington, Kimber, Browning and Wesson.”
Wesson? Gun culture is less like the frontier obligation to defend constitutional liberties and more like a rubber fetish. There aren’t a lot of liberals out there naming their children Prius and Juicer.
And, actually, even though it was set up for a (Donald) Trump joke, they have been promoting Halloween for a month now. Anyway, funny jokes with regard to the potential first lady; his wife.
I had no clue that hackers wanted to or tried to get into Hillary's (Clinton) email server. They evidently tried to do it 5 times and i guess they failed to be able to get in.
That is funny about Fox News freaking out about Kevin McCarthy's comments on the Hannity show. Meaning that they were upset that someone told the truth on the network's new outlet.
I also did not know that three more women have come out about Bill Cosby dosing them with Roofi's as his way to have sex with them.
Why The Vatican Is Being So Weird About The Pope’s Meeting With Kim Davis, According To An Expert.
Why The Vatican Is Being So Weird About The Pope’s Meeting With Kim Davis, According To An Expert.
News broke Tuesday evening that during Pope Francis’s recent visit to the United States, the pontiff briefly met with Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk jailed for refusing to issue same-sex couples marriage licenses. Reports of the rendezvous, which most outlets agree occurred although the Vatican still refuses to formally confirm it, riled both progressive and conservative supporters of Francis.
Some — including Davis — saw the rendezvous as an implicit show of support for the clerk’s cause, a shocking move from a pope who maintains the Catholic Church’s opposition to homosexual relationships but has taken pains to avoid wading into culture wars. Writers such as Crux’s John Allen framed the incident as an example of how Francis doesn’t fit neatly into any of America’s tidy political categories. But many Catholic commentators were quick to warn against drawing any firm conclusions about the meeting, which was reportedly arranged by Vatican officials and not American bishops. In an essay for America magazine, a Jesuit publication, prominent Catholic writer James Martin noted that unless the Vatican explicitly frames the meeting as an endorsement of Davis, people shouldn’t overlay their own beliefs over the pope’s actions.
Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked ‘Ted.’
“Not to put too fine a point on it, but Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked ‘Ted,’” Martin wrote, referencing the Boston-born actor’s widely-panned film featuring a talking bear.
Information about the exchange between the Holy Father and Davis has been sparse, provided almost entirely by Davis and her lawyers, who saw it as a formal approval of her actions. National Catholic Reporter columnist Michael Sean Winters called for the Vatican to reveal more information about the meeting on Thursday, arguing that the lack of details could taint of the pope’s otherwise successful trip to the United States.
“Someone needs to say something or we will only know what Ms. Davis and her lawyers want us to know,” he wrote. “The rest will be speculation, endless speculation … If the pope was badly served by his staff, let that be known. If the pope was badly served by himself, let that be known. But, neither the bishops nor the Vatican can afford to let this fester another minute.”
To get more insight about the possible reasons for the secret meeting, ThinkProgress spoke with Thomas Reese, a senior analyst for the National Catholic Reporter and author of Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church. Reese — who, like Pope Francis, is a Jesuit priest — helped break down the Vatican’s unusual caginess about the meet up, and offered some hints as to what it could mean.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Why, exactly, is the Vatican being so weird about this meeting between Pope Francis and Kim Davis?
There are two possibilities. One is that somebody brought her to the Vatican embassy here in Washington and simply presented her to the pope without much internal discussion.
So basically, “Hello pope, here’s this lady who was a conscientious objector, isn’t that sad?” And the pope said “Oh, courage [to you], God bless you. Here’s a rosary!”
That view is supported to some extent by the very minimal — really, almost nothing — explanation of the visit by the Vatican. If the Vatican wanted to make a point, they know how to make a point. But this has been so downplayed: The Vatican’s response was about as low-level as you can possibly get. They didn’t even [technically] say it happened!
Now, that kind of raises red flags that says maybe even the Vatican thinks this meeting was a mistake — that’s one theory.
Is that what happened?
Well, let’s go back a bit. Typically, the Vatican leaves decisions about how to relate to a local government [during a papal visit] to local bishops. This is not micro-managed by Rome. They figure the bishops know the local situation, and they make the decision for how to interact. And the Vatican typically is supportive of whatever the bishops decide to do. They’re not going to go to a country and undercut the bishops and their relationship to the local government — that just wouldn’t be nice, and wouldn’t be proper.
It could have been one or two bishops who thought this [meeting] would have been a good thing to do.
On the other hand, the particular fights that the local bishops have with their government aren’t necessarily a high priority for the Vatican. For example, when [U.S. Secretary of State] John Kerry met with his counterpart in the Vatican, they spent almost the hour and a half talking about international issues — the Middle East, refugees, peace, reconciliation, those kinds of things. At one point during the meeting, the Vatican’s Secretary of State says to Kerry, “We have to bring up the bishop’s concern of religious freedom.”
Kerry’s response was, “Yes, I know you do.” [laughter]
That was the extent of the discussion. It was about five minutes. But when the press release came out, it included a line about that … And that’s what everyone reported on, even though the Vatican is on the same page with the U.S. with all these other issues. The media didn’t know that only five minutes were devoted to the topic, and that it was with a wink and a nod.
[So this supports the first] hypothesis that the pope had no idea what was going on [when he met with Davis]. The USCCB is saying that they had nothing to do with it. But it could have been one or two bishops who thought this would have been a good thing to do … Since the pope leads through actions, then meeting with this pope could have been seen as support.
So what’s the other theory?
The other hypothesis is that the pope could have known [the situation with Davis], but he doesn’t give it the same high priority as other things.
There’s no explanation, no, “this is what this meeting means,” from the Vatican. The Vatican may have seen this as supporting the U.S. Bishops in the lightest possible way, and I have no idea which one is really the truth — maybe, both are true!
It’s like reading tea-leaves when you’re dealing with the Vatican, because they don’t always explain what they’re doing, and it’s not like Washington … There are probably not more than a dozen people — maximum — who were involved in this meeting [between the pope and Davis], and none of them are talking.
And since the Vatican won’t talk about it, this story will end, probably in a week — except with activists on both sides.
In January, the Vatican also refused to confirm a meeting between the pope and a transgender man, even though it was widely covered in the press. Do you see parallels between that and the Vatican’s treatment of the Kim Davis meeting?
Part of Pope Francis’ DNA is to be compassionate to whoever is in front of him in the moment.
Yeah… You know, part of Pope Francis’ DNA is to be compassionate to whoever is in front of him in the moment. One moment it might be an LGBT person, the next it could be a prisoner.
That is simply who Pope Francis is: he relates to whoever is directly in front of him, without any policy implications.
Is there a difference between the Kim Davis meet up and the pope’s visit with the Little Sisters of the Poor, which is suing the Obama administration for allegedly violating their religious freedom by including the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act?
Absolutely a difference. The former, the Little Sisters of the Poor, was much more of a conscious decision [by the pope and the Vatican]. But again, it was done in a way that wasn’t “in your face” to the Obama administration. Pope Francis just went to see the Little Sisters of the Poor — these nice ladies who take care of old people.
It’s like when the pope was in Palestine and leaned his head against the wall and prayed — but he said absolutely nothing. [Israeli Prime Minister] Netanyahu would cringe, but how can you attack a man for praying?
Kim Davis symbolizes the continual last-ditch fight against gay marriage [in the United States], one that people are simply not going to give up. And I think that’s why it was so hurtful to the LGBT community.
And I’m not sure the pope realized how that would have been interpreted. He just probably thought “This is someone persecuted for their religious beliefs, isn’t that sad?”
Any other differences you see?
The final thing I would say is that, for Pope Francis, [the same-sex marriage debate] is kind of “been there done that.” In Argentina, when this whole fight about gay marriage came up, he was one of the few voices among the [Argentinian] bishops who didn’t just want to fight gay marriage, but actually proposed an alternative. And he proposed some sort of domestic partnership [compromise] … but he lost among the bishops on that. It was the only vote he ever lost among the bishops in Argentina. This, of course, was all behind closed doors. (Editor’s note: This history has been discussed by journalists and biographers of Pope Francis)
So [after he was outvoted], he supported the bishop’s conference publicly, thinking let’s stick together on this. Now — they lost too, and gay marriage is now legal in Argentina! But he did not continue to fight gay marriage [in Argentina]. Unlike the bishops in the United States, it was “okay, we lost, let’s move on.”
He had other priorities, like the poor.
One final question: Is it normal for the Vatican to give out rosaries, like the pope did for Kim Davis and her husband?
Oh yeah. They must have thousands and thousands of rosaries that they give out. He did that at the prison … They give them to journalists. They’re just a nice thing the Vatican does.
Funny Monologue.
Bill and Professor Richard Dawkins discuss politically correct censorship and Islamophobia during the initial interview tonight. Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and author whose most recent book is Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science, a follow-up to his 2013 autobiography. Dawkins is the founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which works to promote scientific literacy and a secular worldview. Twitter: @RichardDawkins.
Bill and the panelists Adam Gopnik, Angela Rye and Matt Welch discuss gun control policy in the wake of the mass shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College.
It was the policy of university administrators to limit the use of guns to the extent allowed by law. But, as ThinkProgress and the New York Times reported, Oregon is one of seven states that allows concealed carry on postsecondary campuses. This was based on a 2011 state court decision invalidating efforts to ban guns at public universities in Oregon. Public colleges like UCC are permitted to exclude concealed weapons from certain buildings and facilities but not the campus in general.
But not only was UCC not a gun free zone by law, there were also people who brought guns onto campus at the time of the massacre.
John Parker Jr., a veteran and student at UCC, spoke with MSNBC and revealed that he was in a campus building with a concealed handgun when the shooting started. He suggested other students with him at the time were also carrying concealed handguns.
This is not supported by the facts. According to a study of 62 mass shootings over 30 years conducted by Mother Jones, “not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns.” Many of those mass shootings took place in areas were guns where permitted, but not a single one was stopped by armed civilians.
Parker’s interview revealed the practical difficulties of armed civilians trying to stop a mass shooting. By the time he became aware of the shooting, a SWAT team had already responded. He was concerned that police would view him as a “bad guy” and target him, so he quickly retreated into the classroom.
Regarding the Kevin McCarthy comments about Benghazi, the dude from the New Yorker magazine says it perfectly. Benghazi is a tragedy searching for a scandal.
And, yeah. The real issue that was politicized was the planned parenthood issue. When that Carly Fiorina blurb about seeing live fetus on the table with the heart beating was just false. It was a bold faced lie. That story she spoke about in that last debate was not even close to being true.
As we also know about what went down in the last week is that the United Nations hosted world leaders and here some more hard truths not mentioned at it:
Here is a discussion about there being water on Mars because of course Mat Damon found some but anyway...
BTW, nice vest Neil. Wow. And, Oh My. Mars was wet (moist) and fertile before Earth was. Neil DeGrasse didn’t really want to engage Bill Maher on Ben Carson‘s views on the big bang theory and evolution because, he said, Carson’s a politician who will say anything to win. Maher brings up how in the past, Carson has called the big bang theory a “fairy tale” and said evolution was “encouraged by the adversary” (could it be… SATAN?!). Tyson really has no interest in commenting on it because “you’re arguing with a politician as if facts matter to what a politician says.” He tells Maher he’s interested in educating the electorate, and “maybe you should be attacking the people who are voting for him.”
In reality though, Bill gets on the cases of people that vote for the likes of smart / dumb people. Bill even exclaims that he does and when Angela Rye brought up Carson’s comments about collecting taxes like church, however, Tyson said it “spooks” him that a politician would use religious language in reference to an issue like taxes.
In reality though, Bill gets on the cases of people that vote for the likes of smart / dumb people. Bill even exclaims that he does and when Angela Rye brought up Carson’s comments about collecting taxes like church, however, Tyson said it “spooks” him that a politician would use religious language in reference to an issue like taxes.
Trump’s Tax Plan Is A Big Giveaway To The Wealthiest.
On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump will unveil a detailed tax reform plan — and he is already positioning it as a populist proposal. In a press alert about the plan, the campaign states, “Essentially, the plan is a major tax reduction for almost all citizens and corporations, in particular, those in the middle and lower income classes.”
And already, the portion of the plan that affects low-income Americans, which would impose a zero percent tax rate on individuals who make less than $25,000 and married couples who make less than $50,000, is generating headlines. “Trump promises a ZERO per cent tax rate for millions: He plans to cut tax for the poor, middle classes and corporations, soak the rich,” the Daily Mail headline reads. “Mr. Trump’s plan appears designed to help him, as the GOP front-runner, cement his standing as a populist,” the Wall Street Journal article previewing the details states.
But the plan has a number of provisions that will overwhelmingly help the already well off.
Lower taxes for corporations
Trump proposes the lowest corporate tax rate of the entire Republican presidential field so far. He would reduce the rate to just 15 percent; by contrast, Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) would reduce it to 25 percent, while Jeb Bush would impose a top 20 percent corporate rate. That would be the on-paper tax rate; American companies already pay relatively low tax rates in reality, however. Thanks to their ability to take advantage of loopholes, tax breaks, and aggressive accounting schemes, the effective rate they pay is already under 20 percent. Meanwhile, although Trump says his tax reform plan will “create jobs and incentives of all kinds while simultaneously growing the economy,” lower corporate taxes don’t tend to go hand in hand with higher growth. There is no evidence that high rates hurt the economy; rather, those that pay the highest effective rates actually create more jobs than those that find ways to pay less.
And he would also impose a one-time, mandatory 10 percent tax on the profits American corporations hold overseas, which could be paid over a few years, to entice them to bring them back here and in theory create more jobs. A similar although slightly different plan, called a “repatriation holiday,” has been tried before, where corporations were offered a low, temporary tax rate on offshore profits to bring them home. When it was imposed in 2004, companies largely used the profits they brought back to give money to shareholders, rather than invest it in hiring or equipment, and many laid off large number of workers at the same time.
Lower taxes for the rich
It’s not just the poorest who would get a tax cut under Trump’s plan. The wealthy would get a hefty reduction too. The highest individual tax bracket, which would apply to married couples who make more than $300,000, would be lowered from the current 39.6 percent rate to 25 percent. That’s an even lower top tax rate than under Bush’s plan, which proposes a top 28 percent on income; yet analysis of Bush’s plan found that the top 1 percent of earners would get the overwhelming benefit of his tax cuts, with an 11.6 percent increase in after-tax income compared to 1.8 percent more for the poorest and between 2.3 and 3.1 percent for the middle class. As with lowering the top corporate tax rate, there’s little evidence that lower income taxes help spur job growth, as it’s historically been stronger under higher rates. Some economists have found that the optimal tax rate for the wealthiest is closer to 90 percent.
Giveaways to the wealthiest
Trump’s plan would also get rid of the estate tax, which only affects the wealthiest 0.14 percent of Americans. Thanks to reductions in the rate over the years and creative methods of getting around it, those who owe it only pay an effective 16.6 percent rate, and less than 10 percent of the $60 trillion that will get passed down to wealthy heirs and charities over the next half century will be paid in estate tax. Nevertheless, it is a significant and progressive source of government revenue, since it only impacts those most able to pay yet will generate $246 billion over the next decade.
And while Trump would follow through with his rhetoric calling out the lower tax rate hedge fund managers pay on the income they earn from doing their jobs by ending the carried interest loophole, he would also cut the top capital gains tax rate to 20 percent. The current code already means that income made from investments enjoys a much lower 23.8 percent rate than income made from work, which is taxed at a top 39.6 rate. And those who enjoy the benefits of a lower capital gains rate are mostly the rich: 70 percent of the money saved through a lower rate goes to the top 1 percent of earners, while just 7 percent goes to the bottom 80 percent. The lower capital gains tax rate is one of the biggest contributors to growing income inequality.
It is time for new rules. New Rules.
Bill and his guests – Richard Dawkins, Angela Rye, Adam Gopnik, Matt Welch and Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson – answer viewer questions after the show.
Regardless of it all happening this long week, please stay in touch!
