Update on Grassley & ministers investigation

I was reading about additional craziness from John Hagee, and it reminded me of something that I'd written about a while back but forgotten about. First, the article on Hagee divulged much of what I already knew -- that he and his ilk want war with Iran, like, yesterday. Why is it that tying this guy and Parsley around McCain's neck isn't a toxic political millstone? The double standard applied to Rev. Wright and Obama is obvious here.

As I read about Hagee's lavish lifestyle and million-dollar salary, it reminded me of Sen. Grassley's investigation into financial impropriety in "prosperity" churches. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been leading an investigation by the Senate Finance Committee into the finances of six ministries commonly affiliated with "prosperity preaching" with the aim of updating the tax code to appropriately deal with this malfeasance. I admitted a little skepticism at the utility and motives of this investigation when I first read about it. At the time, I said:

I read this the other day and I'm still scratching my head. I mean, I dislike Benny "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor" Hinn as much as anyone, and I think the whole lot of those six are probably as corrupt and unethical as it gets. However, I just don't understand the legal power that a Congressperson has to audit the finances of these people.

The IRS? Sure! But Congress...!?!? We'll wait and see if this goes anywhere.

It turns out that three of the six ministries are cooperating, and have until March 31st, according to this press release:

Baucus and Grassley lead the committee with exclusive Senate jurisdiction over tax policy; the ministry inquiry that Grassley launched last November is meant to gauge the effectiveness of certain tax-exempt policies.

“This ought to clear up any misunderstanding about our interest and the committee’s role,” Grassley said. “We have an obligation to oversee how the tax laws are working for both tax-exempt organizations and taxpayers. Just like with reviews of other tax-exempt organizations in recent years, I look forward to the cooperation of these ministries in the weeks and months ahead.”

Grassley wrote to six ministries on Nov. 5, 2007, asking a series of questions on the nonprofit organizations’ expenses, treatment of donations and business practices. The questions were based on presentations of material from watchdog groups and whistleblowers and on investigative reports in local media outlets. One of the six ministries – Joyce Meyer Ministries of Fenton, Mo. – has cooperated substantially with his request and provided the requested information. Benny Hinn Ministries of Grapevine, Texas, has indicated a willingness to cooperate and provided answers to
five of the 28 questions so far.

Representatives for Randy and Paula White of Without Walls International Church/Paula White Ministries, Tampa, Fla., verbally have indicated to Finance Committee staff that they will cooperate. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to thank them for the verbal commitment and to reiterate the committee’s role.

The remaining three ministries have not cooperated, citing privacy protections or questioning the committee’s standing to request the information. Baucus and Grassley wrote to them on March 11 to describe the committee’s jurisdiction and role in determining the effectiveness of tax policy developed by the committee, distinct from the Internal Revenue Service’s role, which is to enforce existing law. The three ministries are: Kenneth and Gloria Copeland of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Newark, Texas; Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International / Creflo Dollar Ministries College Park, Ga.; and Eddie L. Long of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church/Eddie L. Long Ministries, Lithonia, Ga.

The committee’s jurisdiction includes the federal tax policy governing the billions of dollars donated to and controlled by the nation’s tax-exempt groups. The federal government forgoes the collection of billions of dollars to tax-exempt organizations every year.

It doesn't surprise me much about the Copelands or the Dollars. I don't know anything about Long, but I am quite familiar with Copeland and his reputation. I was pleasantly surprised about Hinn -- I figured him for one of those likeliest to resist, rather than cooperate. Randy and Paula White have faced enough personal problems recently with the divorce, so facing additional (scandalous) financial ones was probably a smart decision they made.

While you can read the pseudo-justifications for refusing to cooperate proffered by Creflo and Ken at their own sites, Eddie offers no such attempt at saving face. A little digging finds that some of these jokers are getting paid over $1M salaries. Fuc*ing absurd. Long's church has a gym inside ("Samson's Gym") that offers memberships and massages (all for a large fee, of course) -- the divisions between business and church blurred for these individuals long ago.

Deep Thoughts (with Jack Handey): Oil

Those with no plan for the future will inherit the plans laid by others.

I used to laugh when my dad told me he thought the government should impose a $1 tax on gasoline. I tried to tell him how that would slow growth to a crawl and cripple the economy for years. After reading today's Friedman column and giving it some thought, I now wonder if ol' dad didn't have it right all along.

What worries me a great deal is the relationship between oil and climate change and war.

At the risk of sounding like cursed Cassandra, I want to wax poetic about peak oil for one second. No one actually knows how much oil the world has left, because the Arab states refuse to allow independent audits of their reserves and fields. It could very well be the case that they have been plotting (for decades) to hobble the mighty US giant by making us completely dependent on their oil up to the day it runs dry. At that moment, our economy and our military would be crippled. When I think about Iran wanting to build nuclear facilities, even at the risk of war, it only reinforces this concern. It's like they know we're on the right side of Hubbert's bell curve. If this is true, friends, then we're all fucked.

But, let's say this is not the case at all, and that oil fears are unfounded. Let's say for a moment that we have 200 years of oil supply left in the ground. In fact, recent advances in shale oil technology seem to hold great promise that perhaps as much as 15 million barrels per day of our 21 million barrels per day consumed could be domestically supplied. What does this change in terms of US foreign policy? Not too much, given that we are still not capable of being "energy independent" -- i.e., able to supply all of our own oil demand.

Few people, certainly, would deny that those who control our oil supplies wield enormous influence over us. Some might argue that they are co-dependent since their economies become structured on the export/sale of this resource to us, and so in effect, that we are in a symbiotic relationship. They might say that worrying that Iran/OPEC/whomever would stop selling oil is absurd because their countries would bankrupt themselves.

People like the Heritage Foundation, in this assessment of the ties between national security and US dependence on oil, are irrational and incoherent:

Energy independence, defined as competitive local production of all the energy we need, remains a mirage. It is energy security that we need to accomplish, in which abundant and affordable energy supply is within reach of all Americans. Rec­ognizing the inherent, systemic, and long-term instability of the global oil markets is the first step in addressing the problem the U.S. is facing.

This was their grand, sweeping conclusion. They spell out the fact that by 2017, 70% of US energy needs will be imported if current trends continue, but then they say to just keep importing it. Don't solve the problem, in other words, just use more military force to try to secure the sources of those imports. Absolutely irrational...especially given that the DoD uses more oil than any other source in our country.

This came after admitting that striking Iran would be disastrous for the global supply of oil, and could push prices up to $83 pb if Iran's 15 million barrels were cut off from world supply:

The economic consequences of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities to the world energy mar­ket would likely be significant, if not disastrous. Immediately following military action, according to a Turkish assessment, uncertainty about Iran's abili­ty to sustain oil production at the current level of 4 mbd could drive oil prices above $80 per barrel.[9] If Iran retaliated and escalated by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which would merely require plac­ing anti-ship mines in the strait,[10] the temporary loss of more that 15 million barrels of oil to the international market could drive oil prices above $83 per barrel, the historic height of the 1970s (adjusted for inflation).[11] In fact, a recent Heritage Foundation war game and economic study specu­lated that oil prices could go as high as $120/barrel for a limited time.

Guess what? We're already at $95 and this supply hasn't been cut off. Try again. Looks more like $120 is a closer guess.

Conservatives have no answers when it comes to energy policy. They want to continue the status quo. This is the most irresponsible and dangerous possible approach to our country's long-term economic stability and national security. We must develop more energy independence. Now.

Whether or not you agree with the science of climate change, you cannot deny that oil revenues are being funneled to terrorism and that we are, indirectly, buying the very weapons and supporting the very enemies we send our troops to die fighting with each $ we spend on oil. Saudi Arabia and Iran are both state sponsors of terrorism, and their entire economies have been supported by our addiction to oil. In graphical form, it looks like this:


Learn to equate a gasoline pump with a gun, and you'll start to get the picture.

The energy alternatives already exist, and so the government's role at this point is to make those alternatives viable and competitive on the world market. So long as oil-sponsored politicians run our country, nothing will change. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton know this, and have great energy plans to fix the central issue of transitioning America's oil-based economy into a green and sustainable one.

It's time to elect a responsible and bold leader as America's chief executive, not another regressive conservative who cares more about the status quo and doesn't connect our oil addiction to our wars and national insecurity.

Go progressive.

I agree with Jack Handey -- we need to elect a robot as president next, so we can recover from the Bush years by allowing the newly-elected robot President to tour the country and take bullets from enraged citizens.

Rudy & the mob

From one of the first times I saw Giuliani, I swear I thought to myself, "he looks crooked, like a mobster or something." While prescience is not one of my gifts, and such shallow judgments must be brushed aside in exchange for evidence, I have to wonder, with Rudy's ever-widening Bernard Kerik scandal, if I was on to something. At any rate, Rudy scares me more than pretty much any other front-runner because of his insane foreign policy -- he'd definitely start a war with Iran. His domestic policies are modeled right after King George, as well.

Must-read: Frank Rich on Iran

Rich uses ample factual justification (lovely links) in his rationale to argue that bombing Iran would be a disaster for our country. Read it and spread it around to war hawks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04rich.html

Oh holy sh*t

Sweetjebus. They've been angling this way for months, so any pretenses that war has been something they've been trying to avoid is a joke.

Impeach these clowns before they start WW3, someone, please...

The new skepticism

I was reminded this morning in thinking about things like climate change and evolution how starkly different the certitude level on issues in "pure" politics (like war, foreign policy and economic policy) is from scientific issues. I was thinking about how King W will come out and feign cautious, wise skepticism to reserve judgment on things like whether humans are causing global warming and on ID-creationism. The way these issues are framed appeals to American's sense of fairness and objectivity - "let's sit down and discuss all the rational possibilities, and at the end of it, since these issues are so complicated, we'll still have uncertainty, and thus cause for further debate," this frame says. And conservatives love to toe the party line on this in all discussions about climate change and evolutionary biology.

But look how starkly different these conservatives are when asked to discuss the realities of the Iraq war and our general muscular, hawkish foreign policies, or economic policies. Then, "debate" is not so welcome, and instead you become a terrorist sympathizer or a limp-wristed sissy whose idealitistic notions deserve the label of "flower child"...

Scientists have always been promoters of skepticism. The scientific method is conducive to doubt, as its goal is to provide explanations for natural phenomena which have been thoroughly tested in an effort to debunk their validity. Most of the progress we make in science, contrary to public misconception, is based on what we prove wrong. For example, if I have a hypothesis about how a cell regulates its own MAPK proteins, and I test it and falsify it, then we have progress in the form of eliminating possible rational answers. Cumulatively, these falsifications build up until there are only so many rational alternatives left, and these become, if you will, scientific orthodoxy. But even the most hardened orthodoxy, it is understood, is still subject to modification: that's the beauty of scientific knowledge -- it can always be improved and progress is the goal, not just a possibility.

All that said, I want to point out that it is this very tentative nature of science which those who want to exploit the lack of dogma seize on. Any "controversy" in science, real or imagined, can be created because people understand that a white lab coat is not the same thing as a Roman collar -- our lack of dogma makes it easy to challenge the status quo and current thinking. We eschew rigidity and faith in favor of evidence and questioning.

Those with agendas have exploited this feature of science to no end, emphasizing the fact that "all the facts are never in" -- that it is always possible to find new data that would modify our current interpretations of existing data. Sharon Begley explores this theme in climate change at length in an August Newsweek article, "The Truth About Denial". She carefully chronicles the years-long efforts on the part of energy and oil companies to inject doubt into the mainstream American consciousness about the science behind climate change. It is a powerful strategy, and difficult to overcome.

Just yesterday, I had a surprising conversation with a science teacher who told me that both she and her husband are "climate skeptics". I started a conversation with her, and she told me that the sorts of scientific issues she feels are unresolved involve such things as Mars warming and the decay of the magnetic field of the earth. What was amazing to me was that, although her degree and background are in mathematics and not physics, she certainly had the available faculties to look up and investigate the veracity of these objections for herself, but hadn't. I found out that she had heard this somewhere (Faux News, probably), and had simply believed her source enough not to even go check it out. Little did she know that scientists have addressed all these possible alternative explanations for years, and that they have all been found lacking in merit for various technical reasons.

I really recommend the following index and "guides" for point-by-point refutations of the common objections to man-made climate change:

• The IPCC AR4 report FAQ section (pdf)
  
• Coby Beck's How to talk to Global Warming Skeptic
• New Scientist: Climate Change: A guide for the perplexed
• RealClimate: Response to common contrarian arguments
• NERC (UK): Climate change debate summary
• UK Met Office: Climate Change Myths
• Brian Angliss A Thorough Debunking
• John Cross Skeptical Science

These are all excellent resources with scientific references that should be shared amongst all your friends and colleagues, especially those with whom you think contentious discussions on climate change could take place.

What is so amazing to me is how easily duped people are who feign prudent skepticism towards scientific consensus, but display credulity by swallowing and mindlessly repeating talking points in politics (such as "if we fight them there, we won't have to fight them here" &c.). Is it just that people self-select their news sources in accordance with their pre-determined policy positions, and refuse to budge? Am I the same way? Is it possible to be that way (ignore one side's perspective) if there are actual facts which we can analyze to determine who is right and who is wrong?

Upon further analysis, the president's rationale for invading has been shown a farce and a lie, and every single rationale for the surge and every claim and metric used to support that "the surge is working" falls apart. The central issue of, "Even if we make Iraq 100% safe militarily, that doesn't solve the ethno-sectarian conflict and magically create a unified central government," is continually ignored now, even though Cheney admitted this kept them out of Iraq in 1994.

The numbers get spun in order to keep current policies in place, and people get shuffled when they are no longer willing to spin the right way. As Greenwald recently noted, when Bush is unable to find generals who tell him what he wants to hear, he simply replaces them with those who will. And now, as war with Iran is planned by the right, precipitated by lack of diplomatic progress, and with Faux News dutifully banging the war drums, we need skepticism and cynicism more than ever before. Will it manifest itself? God I hope so.

Why is it that the new skepticism is strongly directed towards scientists, but not towards politics with the same intensity and fervor?

No War with Iran

It's been pretty clear for a while now that the Administration is pushing for another war in the Middle East -- this time with Iran.

Now, their media arm (Faux News) is in full swing helping to move the rapture base towards acceptance of the inevitability of another pre-emptive act of aggression by the U.S. FoxAttacks has put together a beautiful video juxtaposing the buildup for war in 2003 against Iraq versus 2007 against Iran.

Watch it HERE

Cheney on reasons NOT to invade Iraq in 1994

I find this clip both sad and amusing: Dick Cheney explaining on C-Span in April of 1994 why it would've been a mistake to invade Iraq. The reasons?

1. We would've been alone. Unilateral involvement and occupation is wrong.
2. What would the Saddam government be replaced with?
3. Instability of the country -- it would likely be fractured and pieces would fall to Syria and Iran, as well as threaten Turkey in the north. "It's a quagmire..."
4. Casualties. "How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? ... not very many..."

My, how the times have changed. What, was he not a "brutal dictator" back in 1994, but became one by 2003?

Building Support for War with Iran: GOP's Rapture Base

This scary-ass video (embedded below) of people itching to go to war to precipitate their perceived "rapture" -- escape from earth's reality into perfect utopia -- must be seen in its broader context: political support for endless militarism in the Middle East.

The context is the growing chorus of voices ready to strike Iran pre-emptively, even with nuclear weapons (see video 5:09). Support for this sort of terrifying foreign policy is steadfastly rooted in the rapture crowd, drummed up by the likes of Hagee. The Religious Right loons see peace in the Middle East as the work of the Antichrist, so there really is no winning with them. They will oppose all ideas of peace, as they feel it is "the devil's false peace", in favor of jingoistic "support for Israel": how intelligent, to say that you oppose a peace because it is "false" in order to support bellicose pre-emption.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

Click here for all posts on the RR.

Cheney's Words Backfire

Cheney's intimations towards a second front (or see Facebook note) appear to be backfiring as traditional US allies are moving closer to Tehran:

Ahmadinejad said the U.S.-allied Emirates backs Iran's position that the U.S. military should leave the Gulf.

"This region won't allow other powers from thousands of miles away to threaten the region and create enmity," he said. "Our talks with our brothers in the United Arab Emirates reiterated this truth again and again."

Emirati officials had no immediate comment. They have previously expressed strong concerns about growing U.S.-Iranian tensions and elevated U.S. rhetoric against Iran, but have shown no indication they intend to ask the U.S. military to leave.

A pair of newspaper editorials in the Dubai pro-government Gulf News expressed concern about Cheney's speech and supported closer relations with Iran. On Sunday, the paper lambasted Cheney for lumping the Gulf Arab countries into his anti-Iran rhetoric, saying he had needlessly stoked tensions with Iran.

"Such careless talk by the vice president is not only unwelcome but is likely to have created an all-inclusiveness that is not welcome to the Arab states," the paper said.

On Monday, the paper said Ahmadinejad's landmark visit had opened "a new page in relations" and backed the decision to form a bilateral commission. No Gulf leader has publicly backed Iran's call for a security alliance or for the removal of U.S. troops from the region.

Great job, GOP. Your GWOT is proving, day by day, to be more and more an abysmal failure in every respect, and moving us closer and closer towards a conflict of such scale that our military could not presently perform without significant casualties (again, your fault).
________________
Technorati tags: Politics

Shut. Up.

Dick Cheney has apparently decided to start his second war of aggression. Perhaps they think the best way to get everyone's mind off of how they lost the Iraq war is to start another one somewhere else.

Someone impeach these thugs before they get us into WWIII.

On Carrier in Gulf, Cheney Warns Iran
By GRAHAM BOWLEY

Vice President Dick Cheney used the setting of an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf to deliver a stern message to Iran today, warning that the United States would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons or gain the upper hand in the Middle East.

“With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we’re sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike,” he said, in a speech on board the U.S.S. John C. Stennis.

The United States “will stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” he said.

...

Mr. Cheney’s message seemed particularly pointed because, according to the pool report and the Associated Press, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is scheduled to visit Abu Dhabi himself in the next few days.

Mr. Cheney said today that the United States was determined, in the event of any crises in the region, to keep the sea lanes of the Gulf open.

...

“I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat,” Mr. Cheney said. “We want to complete the mission, we want to get it done right, and then we want to return home with honor.”

On Thursday in Iraq, Mr. Cheney spoke to American troops stationed near Saddam Hussein’s birthplace, Tikrit, telling them in somber tones that they still had a tough fight ahead of them.

His assessment stood in stark contrast to the one he made two years ago, when he declared in an interview with CNN that the insurgency in Iraq was in its “last throes.”

...

Mr. Cheney visited the U.S.S. John C. Stennis before, in March 2002, at a time when he was trying to build support for the invasion of Iraq, the A.P. noted.

Today, standing in front of five F-18 Super Hornet warplanes and a huge American flag on the hangar deck of the carrier, Mr. Cheney spoke to some 3,500 service members, according to the A.P. He sounded a hard line, saying the United States must hold firm in Iraq and confront Iran if necessary, the agency reported.

His tour of the Middle East will also include visits to Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

We "turned the corner" in Iraq in 2005, right Dick, so it's time to go to Iran? Keep hoping no one notices how badly you f@%#ed up before so they won't predict you will again, right?
________________
Technorati tags: Politics