American rightwingers have long been hostile to the “we should help the poor” parts of the Gospels – this week they’ve taken that attack to extremes:

Yesterday, [Glenn] Beck told his radio listeners to “look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. … If you find [them], run as fast as you can. … They are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!”

That includes the Roman Catholic Church.

And more:

Glenn Beck continued his attack on “social justice” today, arguing that it entails “a perversion of the gospel” and is “not what Jesus would say”

I would love to see what’s in Glenn’s copy of, say, Mathew 25. Read more »

Whenever an American talks about their great project of spreading democracy around the world, remember that this is what they have in mind.

The decision by the US Democrats to simply put the healthcare bill to a majority vote has been greeted by republicans and their media allies as “parliamentary trickery”, and the President has been condemned for “jamming the bill down Americans’ throats”. None of that makes any sense – “reconciliation”, the measure by which the Senate can stop a minority of senators filibustering indefinitely to stop the majority of representatives passing legislation, is entirely democratic. The filibuster is a “parliamentary trick”, not the measure that overrides it and restores democracy. And the Republicans have never been afraid to use it before themselves. Read more »

Years ago, many political scientists in the US used to critique their rather free flowing party system for not offering voters a definite programmatic contest. In post-war normative democratic theory, parties were seen as able to organise and coalesce a range of interests and measures into a competing platforms which would enable citizens to make a rational choice in voting.

Of course, now that one of the two parties has started to act much more like the disciplined parliamentary caucuses found in Westminster democracies, not everyone is so enamoured of this notion.

But it’s interesting to see a bit of momentum building for a Question Time in the US, which would represent a distinctly different relation between the executive and legislature.

I wonder, though, whether many of its proponents have taken the time to watch Australia’s Question Time, or Britain’s Prime Minister’s Questions.

I wonder… say the American “Tea Party” movement did have some real numbers to it, and they’re telling the truth when they say they don’t support the Republican Party either, and if the voters they chip away from the Republicans were to give more and more elections to Democrats, then might their existence be enough to make the Republicans finally support preference voting? If the Republicans look at their base slipping away, and those votes going to “Tea Party” candidates and no further, and the Democrats benefiting from the division, might they finally be persuaded that preference voting is a good thing for democracy? Because it’s temporarily in their interests?

Do they love the cosy little duopoly they’ve got with the Democrats more than they love retaining their seats?

Remember, a situation like the above is why we introduced preference voting in Australia. Read more »

So the Unabomber of the Obama era (or should that be the Tea Party era?), Joe Stack, flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. And there’s a rant on the intertubes to justify his deed.

But, it’s not terrorism, apparently.

raving black lunatic asks a series of questions, including but not limited to this one:

How can you fly a plane into a building out of spite, and have folks call it “suicide by plane?” That’s like calling it “suicide by portable chest bomb.”

Though for a truly bizarre discussion, you might want to consult Australia’s own Catallaxy Files.