Rachel Maddow’s Problem

Rachel Maddow's Problem Headerby Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Commencement Address

Dr. Maddow gives a commencement address

I first became aware of Dr. Maddow – yes, she is a bona fide Doctor, she received her Ph.D in politics from Oxford University in 2001 – during the days of the now defunct “Air America” radio network.  Air America was an attempt to offer a counter voice to “Right Wing” Talk Radio that was and still is, permeating what is offered all through the day, mostly on your AM dials.

It was a good idea. However, as is often the case, high expectations, combined with a limited investment and a limited amount of time to build an audience with an advertising base, put the success of the venture out of reach. It is difficult to match, in a matter of months or a few years, what your opponents have had decades to put in place. Most investors want a rapid return on their investments. It requires real commitment to take the long view. Evidently, not enough of their venture capitalist could afford that type of commitment.

The Early Days – Air America Radio

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Rachel In Seattle

Rachel in Seattle

Air America did have a remarkable array of talent. In addition to Rachel Maddow, there were Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Mike Malloy and Thom Hartmann to name but a few. The problem wasn’t the on-air talent. The problem was with a management that didn’t know how to compete in the marketplace they were fighting in. It is easy to say, “radio is radio is radio,” however the reality is, “Progressive Talk Radio” appeals to an entirely different demographic. Different educational levels, different income levels and of course, different lifestyles. Running a “buy gold, because the world is about to end” commercial on a progressive station is not going to meet with the same success as running the same commercial on say, “The Glenn Beck Show.” It takes time and research to find your market and the advertisers to fill that market niche.

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann

Following the demise of Air America Radio, most of the talent landed on their feet and have gone on to continue the “Progressive Fight.” Al Franken ran for Congress and got elected to the United States Senate. Others continued in the radio broadcasting venue and Rachel was brought to MSNBC by Keith Olbermann. As Keith’s understudy, Rachel was great. Keith’s hard hitting, Edward R. Murrow style laced with satire and humor was nicely counter balanced by Rachel’s highly detailed, almost forensic examination of the days events. Keith gave the overview and Rachel connected the minute threads. Keith’s presence kept the news presented on MSNBC fresh, moving and varied. In Keith’s absence, the network turned to Rachel in hopes that she could shoulder the mantle of leadership.

MSNBC Gives Rachel A Home

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Rachel and her Mate, Susan Mikula

Rachel with her Partner? Mate? Spouse? Susan Mikula

For awhile, it appeared that Rachel was up to the task and would be able to continue as Keith’s legacy. Overtime it became apparent that Rachel Maddow desperately needed the rudder that Keith provided. The first intimations of this began surfacing when I noticed that number of stories that Rachel reported on that had to do with “Gay Rights.” Anyone who knows anything about Rachel Maddow, knows that she is unabashedly a lesbian. She makes no pretense of her sexual orientation. Indeed when Rachel first appeared on MSNBC, she wore almost no make-up, no jewellery and in essence approached television as she approached radio. You can pretty much wear whatever you want in radio broadcasting.

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Yearbook Photo

Rachel’s yearbook photo from her “Pre-Butch” years.

Under Keith’s tutelage, she began softening her image. The faintest hints of eye-shadow, foundation, and lip gloss began appearing. On occasion I’ve even seen her sport modest earrings. Rachel is not a bad looking woman. However, the whole “Butch” thing she had in radio, just doesn’t sell when you’re dealing with a highly diverse television audience that can actually see you delivering the news. Nevertheless, without the mentoring of Keith Olbermann, Rachel has slowly degenerated into a “two issue” broadcaster. Like a horn player who only knows how to blow two notes, no matter how impassioned her performance, no matter how much dancing around, it’s still only two notes.

You can count on Rachel to reliably cover Gay rights or Gun control. Show after show after show. Only when something really big intrudes and simply must be covered, will Rachel deviate. Even then, she has been known to frame those events in the context of either Gay rights or Gun control. The recent bombing of the Boston Marathon is an excellent example. The following is a clip from her on-site coverage of the events wherein she works in the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. Okay, so there was a delegation there. If you polled the crowd, you could find people who lost loved ones during the 9/11 attacks too.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What happened at the Boston Marathon was an act of terror. The cost in life and lost limbs was high enough without trying to piggyback Sandy Hook to support a personal and political agenda. It amounts to pimping the victims – of both tragedies – to support your own personal agenda. It’s repugnant, crass and just plain wrong.

Rachel Maddow’s Problem

“But here’s the thing about rights – they’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights.” __Rachel Maddow

What I find fascinating is that on almost any given night, you can listen to Dr. Maddow make logical and impassioned arguments for the recognition of the Rights of all people regardless of their sexual orientation. Of course it then follows that Gay people should be allowed to openly serve in our military. They should be accorded the right to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the State. They should be allowed to adopt and raise children. The list goes on.

Rights Are Rights!

Rachel Maddow's Problem - Rachel With Her First Car

Rachel exercising here Right to be who she is.

In principle, I personally support equal rights and equal access for all people regardless of their race, gender or sexual orientation. If you’re a human being, you’re entitled to human Rights. Period. Whether I agree or disagree with your lifestyle or not. What borders on the surreal is in her very next segment, Rachel will shift gears and argue against people’s Constitutionally protected, 2nd Amendment Rights to keep and bear Arms. Yes, those are also a part of the same Constitution that Rachel often points to when she’s arguing that it’s language and interpretation be applied to the Rights of Gay people.

Why am I picking on Rachel? Unlike most of the talking – air – heads reading a Teleprompter, Rachel is a bonafide Ph.D. I’ve noticed she never mentions this and if anything takes pains to de-emphasize her educational credentials. I have and can wink at ignorance. However, Rachel is anything but. Thus, her arguments must be seen as disingenuous sophistry. If the 2nd Amendment can be voted on or misinterpreted, then the Rights of Gay people may also be voted on. Rachel has made it abundantly clear that she is anti-gun and pretty much everything people who are “pro-gun” stand for.

I do not agree with all the various positions of the “Pro-Gun” movement. However, I do understand the clause in the 2nd Amendment which says and was upheld in the “Heller Case,” “…The People’s Right To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.”  Both the President – Barack Obama – and the United States Supreme Court have upheld that the 2nd Amendment outlines an individual Right. It does not apply to a State – National Guard – Militia.

This is Rachel we’re talking about. Doctor Maddow. We’re not talking about someone hired for their photogenic, eye-candy appeal. Rachel was hired because of her intellect, insight and her ability to break complex events down to their simplest components and explain them in a way that common people can understand. Thus, when I hear Dr. Maddow point to the inviolate authority of the United States Constitution and interpret it’s provisions broadly such that not recognizing same sex marriage is discrimination and not equal protection under the law, then try and suggest that the 2nd Amendment from the very same Constitution is up for review, I am forced to question her honesty and suspect her commitment to principle. Rachel Maddow’s problem is, she’s entirely too smart to convincingly play dumb.

Should we tax churches?

A Crystal Cathedral?

by Benjamin T. Moore, Jr.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” First Amendment – U.S. Constitution

From this “Amendment” the entire doctrine of the separation between Church and State is drawn. Read it carefully. It says nothing about taxation. It also mentions the “Press.” If one may infer a tax exempt status for Churches, based on this Amendment, Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times et al, should also get in line for their tax exempt statuses.

Historically, churches being exempt from taxation goes all the way back to the Roman Emperor Constantine. Following his conversion to Christianity it is said he exempted all Christian churches from taxation. This practice continued through the middle ages largely because it was believed the work churches did in caring for the poor and needy relieved the burden on the government. Back then, this was probably a valid assumption.

From the founding of this Nation, churches were not taxed and received a formal exemption from taxation in 1894. Prior to this no less than three Presidents, Madison, Garfield and Grant had called for taxing churches pointing out that by the early 1900’s these tax exemptions had cost the American taxpayer 1 billion dollars. Imagine what that has grown to today.

When people and institutions do not pay their fare share, be they the 1% or multi-billion dollar, international corporations like GE, the taxpayer is footing the costs. The common roads, the infrastructure, emergency services are not free. The taxes these institutions are not paying get defrayed amongst those who are paying. Put another way, your taxes are increased by some percentage because of loopholes, tax evasion or unmerited tax exemptions our government grants to various institutions.

[KJV] Philippians 2:7 
But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

When it comes to churches, things have gotten out of hand. Rather

Paula White’s Rolls Royce in front of her Italian home

than following in the footsteps of Jesus, pastors are emulating the titans of corporate greed. They do not measure their success by how many people they help or how many lives they make better, wealth = success. Not just wealth, but conspicuous wealth. As a rule, Americans have no problem with wealth. If you’ve been extremely successful financially, more power to you. However, how you make that wealth does make a difference.  For instance, we have no problem with the financial success of a Bill Gates, a Warren Buffett or a Steve Jobs. However, we do take issue with the head of a Columbian drug cartel’s opulent lifestyle. Why? Because he makes his wealth off the misery, death and destruction of people who are addicted to a product that is killing them and destroying their lives and the communities in which they live.

Coronation of Eddie Long

But preachers are not drug dealers! Let’s examine this. Religion has indeed become a product which is being marketed to the public. Like insurance, it is sold to you as an “Eternal Assurance Policy.” It is an intangible product. You cannot touch it, taste it or smell it. It makes you feel a certain way to be sure. However, you do not know if what you’ve paid for is real until after you die. No customer has ever been able to return and ask for a refund. Not from any church. Not from any denomination. They cannot all be right. Thus, some groups must be in error and those who embraced those faiths surely must have gotten their feelings hurt once they crossed into the afterlife. Everybody cannot be right. Somebody has to be wrong. If everybody is right, What’s the point in having different denominations?

While there are faith based charitable organizations that actually do

make a difference such as, “The Salvation Army,” “World Vision,”

Creflo Dollar’s Private Jet

“Bread for the World,” compared to proliferation of “mega-Churches,” these organizations are a drop in the bucket. Mega-Churches and their pastors have become profit driven silos of greed. If the pastor has a Rolls Royce… or two, a private jet, a multi-million dollar estate, I’m going to want to see an even greater investment in programs designed to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless and care for the sick.

One of Paula White’s Homes

When the housing market was in full meltdown mode and home foreclosures were spiralling out of control. The members of these mega-churches were hit as hard as everyone else. You did not hear any news stories suggesting that those who tithed, donated and supported the lavish lifestyles of their pastors were somehow blessed or exempt from the economic chaos facing secular society. Something else you did not hear was, how any of these mega-churches came to the rescue of their struggling parishioners. You did not hear about churches stepping up to help those who’d donated thousands of dollars over the years, keep their homes.  If these wealthy mega-churches did not rise to the occasion and help their own members, what type of commitment do they have to social programs that feed, clothe and shelter those who are unable to donate to their operations?

Separation is a two-way street

“Good fences make good neighbours.” __Robert Frost

If you don’t want me getting into your business, stay the hell out of mine! Over the past few decades we’ve seen an exponential growth in church activism. No longer is it enough for them to preach and promote their doctrines to their congregations or to those who choose to tune into them over the airwaves. Now they are bent on seizing the legislative power of government to force people who do not subscribe to their views, to live by those views. Now we have a problem.

They tested the water years ago with what are known as “blue laws.” In many States across this nation you cannot buy liquor on Sundays. The secular public has by and large accommodated this nonsense. We just buy our liquor on Saturday. Annoying? Yes, but in most places, not annoying enough to mount a campaign to change the law. Emboldened by the apparent apathy of secular society they’ve now decided to flex their muscles and  not just weigh in on various issues, but are donating money and motivating their parishioners to take sometimes violent action in an effort to force society to conform to church dogma.

Murdered in Church

While one might argue that church membership makes a prima facie case for mental instability, certainly telling unstable parishioners that doctors who perform abortions are murderers is tantamount to loading the gun, putting it in their hand and pointing them in the direction of the nearest abortion services clinic with a blessing from God. Once reason and rationality is replaced with self-righteous faith, the surrealistic irony cannot be grasped by the misguided missiles they’ve released. If abortion is murder and murder is forbidden by God, then murdering an abortion provider makes you just as deserving of God’s judgement as the person you’re murdering.

There is also the oxymoron of promoting an omnipotent God who is involved in all aspects of human affairs but whom for some reason needs and requires human beings to do his dirty work. If God wants someone dead, why does he need me, you or anyone else to kill them for him? Couldn’t God simply take their next breath? Their next heartbeat? How is this any different than some radical Islamic Imam convincing his followers to strap on a bomb vest and go detonate themselves so they can enter paradise? If the Imam truly believed his message, he wouldn’t be present to deliver it because he would have already blown himself into paradise.

Mormons rally against Prop-8

Abortion is not the only issue churches want to weigh in on. They also have taken an issue with what we do in the privacy of our homes and in our private relationships. Irony of ironies the Mormon church actually donated millions of dollars to defeat “Prop-8” in California. A group who’s hallmark was redefining “Marriage” fought tooth and fang to prevent the redefining of marriage. It is difficult to imagine the level of delusion necessary to make sense of group who’s very tenets of faith originally taught that men must have multiple wives in order to enter heaven, forming their mouths to defend “traditional marriage.” Surely their lips must have split!

It is one thing to promote the tenets of one’s faith to those who have embraced that faith. It is quite another to mobilize and attempt to enact laws to force the rest of society to conform to your particular brand of religion.

Christian Terrorism

Terry Jones promoting burning of Qur’ans

What happens when promoting your twisted theology causes the deaths of American Service Personnel? In 2010 Nit-Wit Florida pastor Terry Jones thought it would be a dandy idea to promote what he called, “Burn a Qur’an Day.” Because – possibly by design – this message made it on to YouTube and around the Internet, it was eventually seen in Islamic countries where American forces are stationed. As you might expect, Muslim fundamentalist were not too pleased with this idea. The result? Embassies were attacked and people died. 20 in just one attack in Afghanistan. Good idea? Not if your son or daughter is currently stationed over there.

How much did this cost the U.S. Taxpayer? I do not know. If it was your child that got killed because of this, what price would you place on his or her life? Security at American Embassies had to be increased. Battle groups were moved into the area. Air support was increased and you and I had to foot the bill through increased taxes. Didn’t notice your taxes go up? When money is directed away from the services you are receiving, you’re getting less for what you’ve paid. This amounts to an increase in the cost of what you’re paying for.

Children being raised to hate

If this weren’t enough, to add insult to injury – literally – upon trying to bury our sons and daughters who gave their last measure of devotion, families have had to contend with the shenanigans of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church. They literally bussed people to the graveside services of our fallen soldiers to picket the ceremonies by hurling such epithets as “God Hates Fags” and “We’re Glad Your Dead.” Of course the sexual orientation of the fallen is never considered. Doesn’t matter that our dead sons and daughters were straight. The fact they serve in our military which – through no fault of their own – no longer discriminates on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation, is enough. If you don’t hate “Fags” as much as Fred Phelps, you’re just as guilty and on your way to hell too!

Church and taxation – the facts

When we exempt churches from paying taxes, we the taxpayers are

Creflo Dollar’s Estate

giving them free money. We have done this under the aegis that they would use these benefits for the betterment of society and in fulfilling the philosophical mission of the historical Jesus. Clearly this has not been the case. Not only have they grown fat from the largesse of the  American tax payer, they are now using this wealth to socially engineer society back to the medieval period we refer to as the “Dark Ages.”

Not long ago I had a preacher tell me to “stay in my lane.” I promptly informed her that as a devout Agnostic I have no lane. Clearly she had forgotten we were not in her church and she was not in her pulpit. What had led to our interaction was her spouting her inability to vote for President Obama because of religious reasons. She didn’t like the fact that he was not willing to break his oath to uphold the Constitution and thought he ought to ban abortions by an “executive order.”

Of course the fact that the other candidate is a bishop in a church that teaches that God has endless celestial sex with his thousands of wives, made her no never mind. The belief that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers? Hardly even a speed bump. When I pointed out these flagrant contradictions to the faith she claims to hold, she quickly switched to the “Gay Marriage” issue. She is not an unintelligent woman which is why I did not let her off the hook. We are not electing the titular head of a religious institution. The United States is not a theocracy. Although the President when taking the “Oath of Office” placed his hand atop a Bible, he did so while affirming his obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Provision in the Constitution ensure equal rights and equal protections under our laws. There are no exceptions for race, creed, gender or sexual orientation. These people will cry loudly and spare not when it comes to the evils and corruption of our government yet in the same breath want our government to intrude it’s self into our most intimate and private moments.

It was not lost on me that this was one of those pastors who owns a $200 thousand dollar automobile and resides in a multi-million dollar estate. It was then I had my epiphany! She was not voting her religious convictions, she was voting her own economic interests. Understandable except for the part where she was using her office to persuade others barely scraping by, to vote in lock step with her under the guise of the issues being religious in nature.

We take a dim view of this type of behaviour which is why official political commercials always have the phrase, “I (candidate’s name) approve of this message.” This is to let those hearing the commercial know who is behind the commercial and what their biases may be. If churches want to get involved in government, they need to stop pretending and pay their taxes like every other institution.

I’ll be fair. If they can show conclusively that they’ve given to their communities in actual dollar value the amount they would be assessed in taxes, we can allow them to write off those taxes against their contributions. I suspect we won’t have nearly as many oversized, expensive churches surrounding by low income housing.