The Roy Moore saga

I'm late writing about this story, but that's OK because the themes of the story are timeless. (I'm also going to be more free-form in writing.)

Roy Moore is a former judge in Alabama who displays a lot of the worst characteristics of evangelicals. He thinks God is on his side. He thinks he's right and anyone who agrees with him is wrong. His beliefs are more important than American law. He thinks he's right when he defies court rulings, laws, whatever. He's been removed from the Alabama Supreme Court twice (TWICE!) for this kind of behavior. The first was for refusing to remove a stone statue depicting the Ten Commandments. (The order was due to that whole 'separation of church and state' nonsense.) The second time was for lying about his directions on how to handle (errr, avoid) marriage for same sex couples, which the US Supreme Court approved a few years ago.

So, although he was controversial, he ended up as the GOP nominee for Senate for a special election in Alabama to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become Attorney General. This shows yet again that too few regular people vote in primaries. People shouldn't be so lazy because primaries are important for getting the best possible person in the office.

The GOP had the main primary and then a run-off between the top two. Only after this process were there national reports alleging that Roy Moore had chased, bothered, and even molested at least one 14-year-old girl when he was single, a prosecutor, and in his 30's.

This isn't news to me. I hadn't heard it about Roy Moore, but I've heard it before and even witnessed it with my own eyes. There are too many men who take liberties with women as though men have prerogatives and women must simply comply and supply. So I'm not disposed to believe a man's denials. But beyond my own bias, the preponderance of the evidence is against Roy Moore and with his accusers. There is a pattern, plus there are plenty of people confirming that he gave unwanted attention to teenage girls. There's even a video of a male worker at a store in the mall talking about Moore being banned from the mall, including the name of the police officer to contact if Moore came around. This isn't a guy with an ax to grind, so his story is very credible and very damaging to Moore. The denials are Moore and his friends circling the wagons. Again, this is typical entitled male response (actually, circling the wagons is typical of many groups).

Moore, just as one might expect from a self-righteous person, denies the reports and calls his accusers liars. What is much more likely is that Moore is an abject liar himself.

Only one Republican that I can point to has acted honorably, and that's Senator Richard Shelby. He clearly said that Roy Moore isn't a good candidate, that he wasn't going to vote for him, and that Alabamians shouldn't vote for him. Most other GOPers were weasels about Roy Moore.

The good news is that Roy Moore lost. That's a good reflection on the majority in Alabama, and what a pleasant surprise to give the rest of the country. The Dems were very happy because there hasn't been a Dem senator from Alabama in 20 years. The Republicans aren't completely upset because Roy Moore is a loose cannon that they won't have to worry about, so a bit of relief for them.

Image: al.com

Extras. Lots. Breitbart lies about the inscription in a yearbook. It was clearly a combination of different writers, so this isn't a revelation... to anyone with a working brain. Breitbart then whines about being labeled liars. Another woman shows a greeting card from Roy Moore, who dated her when she was 17. Check out the handwriting.

Fox News interview with a pretty fair analyst. The anchor is trying to skew things, and it's interesting how the info about Sen. Shelby is buried at the end. Probably no accident. Roy Moore never conceded the election (because he's God's choice, you know) and even tried to prevent the certification of the election. He wasn't successful because there is a reality beyond Moore's belief systems. Thank God for that.

The high price of taxes in GOP fairy land

Boehner is finally just barely admitting that taxes are going up. His latest offer allegedly supports tax rate increases on those with incomes over $1 million. But, for his agreement, Boehner also requires cuts in the big entitlement programs (SS, Medicare, Medicaid).

Boehner is still is living in the alternative reality where tax increases might not happen, so he needs a huge payoff to actually allow the tax increases. Meanwhile in the real world, everyone else knows that the tax increases are coming. It's already in the law, and it doesn't require anyone's permission, no more than rain needs permission to hit the ground after it starts falling.

Nuns can fly, but taxes can't rise, in GOP land

Image:zaiusnation.blogspot.com

I almost feel sorry for Boehner because he's in a ridiculous position. He has to try to conjure something out of nothing. The 'nothing' here is the GOP's ability to prevent tax increases, which I keep saying is non-existent. Yes, the GOP has NO CHANCE to prevent these tax increases.

I don't know how large I have to type this information to get the GOP to wake up to this reality. Nothing seems to work. Various GOP congressmen talk about how they've been suckered into raising tax before for spending cuts that never materialize. Sure, my GOP friends, don't ever vote that way again. But realize that you're not being asked for your vote on this. It's coming with no vote needed.

Some Republicans are trying to get their colleagues to consider bills that will extend the tax cuts for some (such as the under-$250,000 crowd), but to no avail yet.  Actually, maybe it's one lonely Republican, Tom Cole (R-OK).

Boy, it's going to be fun watching the GOP when these inevitable tax increases hit. We should have a stopwatch (or calendar) on them to see when the denial finally ends. Maybe the heads of half the GOP will explode.

As they used to say on the countdowns, T minus 15 days and still no realism in sight for the vast majority of Republicans.

Update 12/26/12. Here is evidence of what I surmised, that the GOP didn't understand the inevitability of tax increases. According to a Wall Street Journal insider article, Boehner asked what he gets for agreeing to a $800 billion revenue increase. Obama's reported response:

"You get nothing. I get that for free."

That is harsh, but it's the truth. If Boehner expected any major concession, it shows that he didn't understand the negotiating positions. It's no wonder that they couldn't reach a deal with one party blind to the lay of the land.

What conservatives say about Romney now

At the beginning of November, I asked this:

• What will Republicans/conservatives say if Romney wins or almost wins because he went decidedly moderate in the final weeks of the campaign?

Now there's an answer.

"The moderates have had their candidate in 2008 and they had their candidate in 2012. And they got crushed in both elections. Now they tell us we have to keep moderating. If we do that, will we win?" -- Bob Vander Plaats, a Christian conservative leader in Iowa

I should've seen this coming. The conservatives were overjoyed with the gentler Romney when he surged in the polls in October. But then there was immediate amnesia about that change when he didn't win. If he had won, there would have been no acknowledgment that moderation had anything to do with it.

These conservatives really do live in an alternate reality that has two axioms:

• If you're a conservative, you win.
• If you didn't win, you weren't conservative enough.

Beyond the strangeness of their alternate reality, I have another question. How can a sane person choose to live in an alternate reality, willfully closing their eyes and mind? I don't get it.

 Image: fightliberals.com

Note: Not all conservatives are saying this. Many are looking at the demographics and analyzing what campaign messages were counterproductive. Yes, there are some reality-based conservatives too.

Against dogmatism

I'm not a religious person, but I'm quite familiar with religion.  I grew up with fairly devout parents, several siblings are devout, and my sweetie enthusiastically goes to church nearly every Sunday and holy day. As I've said before, I greatly respect religion.

That said, religion is a horrible basis for politics. This suddenly strikes me as strange. Why is religion a good basis for religion, but a bad basis for politics? Such a simple question, but perhaps there's a lot to explore there.

What got me thinking about this is Andrew Sullivan's post about another blogger at National Review insulting his thought process. I don't want to comment on blogger squabbles, which are endless and tacky in their inbreeding, but it did remind me how important one idea is to me: empiricism.

I fell in love with philosophy in college, and have used critical thinking forever afterward. I also studied physics and psychology, with a sprinkling of art history and geology and other assorted bits. It was a wonderful example of a wide-ranging liberal education. Of all these fields, the one with the strongest basis was the philosophy of pragmatism.

Pragmatism has a lot of similarities to science. It calls for empirical observation, reflection, and testing. It is also explicit about some processes that are implicit in science: follow-through to see the results, iterations on promising theories to refine them, trying out alternative approaches. What makes pragmatism work is what makes science work so well: it is based on honest, unbiased, and careful observation. You don't jump to a conclusion, you wait for enough evidence. If only politicians of all stripes would do that.

"I wrote my dissertation on the primacy of practical wisdom in human conduct - in contradistinction to ideology... Dish readers can judge for themselves whether this blog is about imposing 'theoretical, theological, and ideological certainties' or whether it is about taking positions but always subjecting them to scrutiny, re-evaluation, re-thinking." -- Andrew Sullivan

 Graphic: chemheritage.org