What are journalists supposed to do?

They call handpicked invisible people on the phone and then write columns summarizing what they claim they said without identifying or describing a single one of them.

(They) just faithfully serve(s) as a mindless stenographer for hidden people whose credibility you’re told to accept even as they do nothing but spout manipulative, vapid idiocies about Churchillian Resolve designed to promote endless war.

Colbert–

(A)s excited as I am to be here with the President, I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of FOX News. FOX News gives you both sides of every story: the President’s side, and the Vice President’s side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking? Reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason: they’re super-depressing. And if that’s your goal, well, misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good, over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works. The President makes decisions. He’s the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put ’em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!

I can’t really put it any better than Wikipedia does–

The narrative of Jesus and the Money Changers occurs in all four Gospels in the New Testament. It occurs near the end of the Synoptic Gospels (at Mark 11:15-19, 11:27-33, Matthew 21:12-17, 21:23-27 and Luke 19:45-48, 20:1-8) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:12-25). As a result some biblical scholars think there may have been two such incidents.

I’m doing ‘God’s work’. Meet Mr Goldman Sachs

John Arlidge, The Sunday Times

November 8, 2009

“Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.”

So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”

As you might guess from my handle and my Buddhism I reject Christianity entirely, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know it.

What Blankfein is embracing is a particularly warped and narrow view of Calvinism.

Since everything is predestined by God who knew you in the womb, your material success is an indication of God’s favor.  It shows you are among the elect.

This is sometimes also called the Protestant Work Ethic.

The richer you are the more Godly.

Now how you square this with Camels and Needle Eyes and Saul’s Unmerited Favor through Grace is a job for a real theologian.

You know, someone who believes in original sin.

(h/t Digby)

64 Dems Ask for Primary Opponents

By: Rayne, Firedog Lake

Saturday November 7, 2009 7:37 pm

4 updates.

Jon Walker and David Dayen, both of Firedog Lake are reporting tonight that the Stupak Amendment which virtually bars BOTH Private Companies AND the Public Option from providing coverage for Reproductive Health Care for Women will receive a Floor Vote tomorrow in the House.

As Jon explains-

Stupak’s amendment, by not allowing a private insurance company to sell a policy to anyone if they receive any amount of affordability tax credits, would make it impossible for a private insurance plan that covers abortion to survive on the individual and small group market. Stupak has threatened to bring down the entire bill if he does not get his amendment. Rep. Stupak called all previous “compromises” that had been offered “unacceptable.”

As David reports-

The Democratic leadership is making a bet that, if it doesn’t pass, Stupak and his cadres will sign on to the bill (I highly doubt it; most of them are no votes on health care entirely); and if it does pass, pro-choice Democrats won’t sink the bill entirely (also, I highly doubt it). I’m a bit surprised that it’s come to this. Also, Stupak appeared to have lied in the Rules Committee about how the deal “fell apart,” since he got what he wanted.

This is an enormous bet, and not a well-designed one either, in my view. The Democratic Party will tomorrow give a minority of their caucus an opportunity to amend a large health care bill that would effectively ban abortion services coverage in the individual and small group insurance market, essentially telling private insurance companies what they cannot cover.

Quoting the Washington Post, David continues-

The amendment is expected to pass with the combined support of more than 40 anti-abortion Democrats and virtually every House Republican. That likelihood meant that leaders of the much larger group of Democrats who support abortion rights were not happy to learn of the deal.

“There will be no abortion, not just with public funds, but with private funds under the public option, and that’s not acceptable,” said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.).

House leaders met with that bloc of Democrats late Friday to try to quell their frustration., but the agreement makes clear that they believe abortion-rights Democrats will find it difficult to vote against the health-care bill even with such a restriction attached to it.

As far as I’m concerned this is a flat out deal breaker.

Health Care Reform with the Stupak Amendment is not worth passing and I intend to call the House Leadership and my Congressperson tomorrow to express that opinion.

I urge you to do the same.