"Pope doesn't come over to where you work and slap Jamie Dimon's dick out of your mouth."

[rufus dog]

http://m.

&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DBci1eZFoyEg

[hrmjustin]

1. .

[Luminous Animal]

2. That was good. The tides they are a changing.

[Kurovski]

3. Rope-a-dope pope.

Oh, he'll fix their crash carts, but good.

I say, do I detect immense improvement in Mr. Stewart's British-y accent?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

10. Wow. Good catch. Maybe getting that

Underclass cockney Brit off the show has helped. Less Eliza Doolittle and more Tony Blair vibe.

[geardaddy]

40. I thought he was an Aussie.

He sounds like Murdoch to me.

[Kurovski]

41. Jon Stewart is American.

So I'm confused, daddy.

[geardaddy]

42. Oops, I meant Varney

Wonder if there's any relation to this guy.

[Kurovski]

45. He'd have been the better human being in the clan, rest his soul.

That's for certain.

[pam4water]

55. He grew up in New Jersey

[geardaddy]

60. Not Stewart

Stuart Varney. I posted in the wrong place.

[myrna minx]

92. Hello stranger.

It's nice seeing you around these parts.

[Kurovski]

111. What?!

What's so strange about my parts??!

[upi402]

4. It sounded like tables being turned over

outside the temple... the ones that the money lenders had set up...


ROFLMAO

[freshwest]

73. Let's all be like Jesus!

[Release The Hounds]

97. Perfect

[ctsnowman]

105. lol

[Larry Ogg]

113. Of course the money changers figured out a long time ago, that...

If they crucified conscience, put Barabbas on the pulpit, and "IN GOD WE TRUST" on the currency, the stupid sheep would be blind to the malevolent acts of greed, and therefor assume that the grand thieves, con artist, and money changers of today, (aka psychopaths) go with the blessings of God, and are nothing like the ones Jesus threw out of the temple.

How ironic, that the biblical phrase, "Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing", be so apparent on American currency, and have the blessings of right wing religion who incidentally, takes its share of the loot.

[Kurovski]

115. !

Oh hell, I'd just be happy to see them go to prison, but they bought their way out of that shit.

[DeSwiss]

5. If there was ever a Pope.....

...who might actually slap a few dicks out of mouths, this might be the one. But Jon's right, of course. All those MSM and cable business programs are hosted and guested by prostitutes and whores for Jamie. Lloyd on the weekends and holidays.

- They give them the daily blowjobs because busy CEO's just don't have that kind of time.

K&R

[Voice for Peace]

12. I like this shmiley

[DeSwiss]

13. This is always so embarrassing.....

- Gee, thanks.

hehehehehe

[Voice for Peace]

15. I'm awake in the middle of the night here.. funny to get a response.

there is something about being awake all night that makes it feel like one is the last human on earth.

[DeSwiss]

18. Well, just great!

- A captive audience. Perfect.

Here's an monograph I'm writing and editing now. See what you think:

The Flaw

While evolution is without doubt, since evolutionary mutations can be observed in a test-tube, it occurred to me recently that the Darwinian thesis of ''survival of the fittest'' as the driving force behind all species' existence and the will to live, is flawed. At least with respect to homo sapiens sapiens.

I reached this conclusion after failing to see any survival advantage gained as a species when limiting our cognitive abilities and function through reducing our ability to use our brain's computing capacity (except when we're sleep) to about 5%. They think Einstein maybe used 10% or so.

What's further, (and more daunting to consider) 97% of our DNA's function and physical programming capabilities are completely unknown to us. Ninety-seven percent. Arrogant and no doubt cock-holded scientists have had the audacity to name these DNA strands, ''junk DNA'' because they lack the knowledge of what it is.

Now, if form follows function and the function here is to survive, then why would a species not use 100% of the capacities and capabilities of all its survival components and systems? It does not do this with its other organs, components and systems. Our lungs fill-up all the way, not 5%. Our kidneys work all day all night, not at a rate of 3%. We'd be dead in minutes. These organs are designed to work and do function at 100% capacity from the start, unless some defect or disease prevents this.

So why would a species carry all this dead weight through one generation to the next? What survival advantage has been gained? Why maintain, feed, provide gargantuan amounts of blood and water and energy for your brain, and 95% of its functional value for survival is beyond the reach of the person in whose head this organ resides?

These two areas alone (the brain and DNA) account for an otherwise useless capacity for storage and function at a 90-97% loss-rate which will not sustain life if that pattern were followed by all our other organs and component parts. So this part is impossible to fathom as a central aspect of Darwinian theory. It's kind of like having a super computer but its operating with a 8086 IBM chipset. Or a Tandy-1000.

And that 3% of the DNA conundrum is even more mind-boggling to me. It's like having a copy of the NASA programming that sent the Rovers to Mars, but we're only allowed access to the BASIC and maybe DOS 2.0 programming part of the language right now. When trying to contemplate what that other 97% could make us capable of doing it naturally leads to wondering why it's functioning this way at all. Because it makes no logical sense for this to be a natural occurrence. I can't think of any other examples in Nature where this is true. Just us humans.

Think about it.

[CBGLuthier]

26. Well there is one major "flaw" with this

The thing about only using a certain percentage of our brain is just an urban myth. All of our brain is useful. Sorry.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

[DeSwiss]

31. I'm not so sure its a myth.....

...when you compare the brain activity while sleeping as compared to when one is awake. It's all a matter of interpretation as to what's important and what ain't. On the other hand, nothing is an ''exact'' science when it comes to consciousness.

- Since all this (and us) are light energy, I suppose we can make of it what we will. Quantum theory agrees.

I appreciate the input.....

[font color=red]on edit:[/font] And the DNA conundrum?

[Voice for Peace]

30. I left the computer for a few hours and only saw this now.. just so you know

this is a very interesting question I've never thought about.
My view of human evolution (from here forward, not the past)
is simplistic and not based in any proven science.

Now I've really been awake all night and brain is on the blink.
But I'm interested in more if you've written more. The
human machine is endlessly fascinating.

[jeff47]

37. There's some other flaws

Aside from the "use only a little of our brain" thing in the other reply, there's a few other problems.

First, our other organs don't operate at 100% all the time. Your lungs aren't running at capacity unless you've been exerting yourself recently. Your kidneys crank themselves up and down based on your blood chemistry.

Second, Junk DNA serves a purpose. The vast majority of mutations are bad - they make something that works no longer work. Junk DNA provides space for mutation to result in "new" genes while not damaging the "old" ones. (Assuming Junk DNA turns out to actually be junk.) Also, most other complex species have lots of "Junk DNA". It's not unique to humans. The only place we don't find much Junk DNA is in bacteria, but even they have "non-coding regions". In bacteria, we think it's to provide space for the decoding proteins to attach to the DNA.

But the larger problem is you are trying to apply logic and thoughtful design to evolution. Evolution is caused by chance. So a "better" system may have simply not appeared. We still have an appendix because not having one just didn't come up. We are talking about only ~400k years for humans to be "tweaked", and such a small amount of waste that is the appendix does not create much evolutionary pressure.

Or a better system could have appeared but other factors overwhelmed the improvements. Ancient humans that did away with the appendix may have been slaughtered by a neighboring tribe or died in a famine caused by a drought.

[2naSalit]

81. Actually

the major flaw is that Darwin made no such proclamation as you ascribe to him...


I'm taking this from Wiki only because it's in digital form but there are many other written citations that say, basically, the same thing:

Evolutionary social movements... Darwin's fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.

Thomas Malthus had argued that population growth beyond resources was ordained by God to get humans to work productively and show restraint in getting families, this was used in the 1830s to justify workhouses and laissez-faire economics.[170] Evolution was by then seen as having social implications, and Herbert Spencer's 1851 book Social Statics based ideas of human freedom and individual liberties on his Lamarckian evolutionary theory.[171]

Soon after the Origin was published in 1859, critics derided his description of a struggle for existence as a Malthusian justification for the English industrial capitalism of the time. The term Darwinism was used for the evolutionary ideas of others, including Spencer's "survival of the fittest" as free-market progress, and Ernst Haeckel's racist ideas of human development. Writers used natural selection to argue for various, often contradictory, ideologies such as laissez-faire dog-eat dog capitalism, racism, warfare, colonialism and imperialism. However, Darwin's holistic view of nature included "dependence of one being on another"; thus pacifists, socialists, liberal social reformers and anarchists such as Peter Kropotkin stressed the value of co-operation over struggle within a species.[172] Darwin himself insisted that social policy should not simply be guided by concepts of struggle and selection in nature.[173]

After the 1880s a eugenics movement developed on ideas of biological inheritance, and for scientific justification of their ideas appealed to some concepts of Darwinism. In Britain, most shared Darwin's cautious views on voluntary improvement and sought to encourage those with good traits in "positive eugenics". During the "Eclipse of Darwinism" a scientific foundation for eugenics was provided by Mendelian genetics. Negative eugenics to remove the "feebleminded" were popular in America, Canada and Australia, and eugenics in the United States introduced compulsory sterilization laws, followed by several other countries. Subsequently, Nazi eugenics brought the field into disrepute.[V]

The term "Social Darwinism" was used infrequently from around the 1890s, but became popular as a derogatory term in the 1940s when used by Richard Hofstadter to attack the laissez-faire conservatism of those like William Graham Sumner who opposed reform and socialism. Since then it has been used as a term of abuse by those opposed to what they think are the moral consequences of evolution.[174][170]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Inception_of_Darwin.27s_evolutionary_theory

I know that it is misrepresented all the time but it should not be allowed to persist. I find the same issue with malicious political agendas being ascribed to Niccolo Machiavelli as well. He was an observer and wrote about what he saw world leaders do and how they behaved in their positions and wrote about it only to be accused of all kinds of stuff for exposing what the elite did that was not acceptable in terms of humanity. He didn't make that shit up, other people did and he outed them.

[Locrian]

120. competition

There is also ample evidence of cooperation in evolution.

Also, as for brain - it's interesting how our 'junk' dna follows the pattern of a 'language' while the active part (used for replication) does not. Then there is the whole question of accessing the brain thru things like psychedelics (read Graham Hancock, Terence Mckenna here).

I feel we have not even begun to understand reality and what we are capable. The big issue now is whether our dominiator culture will destroy us before we realize a better more cooperative partnership culture.

[cer7711]

6. That's Some of the Best Work I've Seen JS Do

Yeah, buddy! That was SO satisfying to watch . . .

He tore those insect-like sociopaths apart.

[Kurovski]

43. I'd say the entire episode was Emmy worthy. Even including the interview,

which happily was not just one where glad-handing a movie performer was the priority.

[painesghost]

88. Yeah this episode was truly awesome.

This was actually probably one of the top ten shows he has ever done. Although those two commentators are pretty easy targets to work with. Most cons don't actually come right out and say what they are truly thinking, the at least try to act like they have a heart. Those two ere just cold as ice.

[JackInGreen]

7. I have to wonder

could we somehow get like.....a few truck loads of coal delivered to these folks, fereal?
Just for a Christmas treat, have em wake up Christmas morning...coal pile in the front yard...go into work the day after....coal filling up their offices...

[MADem]

17. They'd get their servants to sweep it up and sell it to a coal fired power plant.

They just don't care.

So long as they are getting theirs, they'll look down their noses.

I think the Pope is gonna be a rather unlikely ally in the fight to pull those moneylenders outta the temples of commerce.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

8. FOX "News" is a National Joke.

[bluesbassman]

52. Well yeah, it would be a joke if so many didn't take it so seriously...

As it is, it's more of a Notional tragedy.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

67. There really aren't that many....

[freshwest]

77. More like a national disgrace. Why does no one picket, demonstrate against, occupy, these abusers?

It's not like FNN headquarters on 6th Avenue in NYC is an undisclosed location...



I've always thought it fishy that they are spared such attention. People demonstrate against the Phelps, the burn a Koran guy, and other first amendment kooks while FNN is the most blatant political propaganda enabler there is. With almost a third (97 million households) of the voting public in thrall to their propaganda, they incite people to do acts of violence. They are destroying America one mind at a time. I don't see what in government can equal their influence. I wonder why there is so much silence in real life.

Are people afraid to face the wrath of their demogogues?

Just sayin'

[Spitfire of ATJ]

82. Same reason Occupy couldn't protest in front of the Stock Exchange. It's all private property.

[freshwest]

85. Well kinda. The sidewalks aren't private property. No one seems to protest these guys and

FNN virtually acts as a fifth column to destabilize the nation. We know they're dirty, but no one says so anywhere except on the internet. Everyone that has really gone after them and their pundits are put off the airways.

Thanks for the reply, see you later.

We're in a terrible fix. or maybe we always were. The power is local, not following these guys, but they get directly into the brains of voters like a morphine drip tube in the arm. It's spooky and people have died from it, with stochastic terrorism. One can still be a lone gunman and be programmed by Fox.

I think they make a fuss about defense programs to influence opinion or spying just to divert the attention off garden variety mind control media uses that no one believes is happening.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

9. That is pure awesomeness

[freshwest]

108. So is that sig line of yours...

My question to conservatives:

"Do you pray to stop being a moron, or have you accepted that this is the Lord's plan for you?"

~ Pretzel Warrior

[Voice for Peace]

11. jon stewart is a boon to humankind

[Scuba]

14. Jon. Brilliant. Again.

[Kurovski]

44. Jon and his creative team, yes.

Very often brilliant. I thought the material and message was beautifully delivered. Jon is a passionate man who seems to be on a mission.

Or at any rate, he's a dedicated mensch.

[HughBeaumont]

16. Shared. Every supply-sider idiot needs to watch this.

The two RNC/Big Biznezz-propaganda arms are working overtime to discredit the strikers. It's quite shameless and sad, really. Without these workers spending every dime, their precious capitalism doesn't continue. I don't get why they're being blatantly obtuse about this.

[stillwaiting]

23. I think that their focus is simply on a global scale.

They seem to have decided that their lifestyle/income/wealth is not at risk by leveling the American way of life and making it more on par with other countries around the world.

It is not fun to be inside this declining empire that's for sure (unless you are one of the global elitists and even then you'd have to be a global elitist AND an asshole to enjoy what is being done to the American people <------ granted, that is most of them and most of them have probably rationalized it in some way that they don't lose a minute of sleep).

[freshwest]

124. You got it.

[Delphinus]

19. Fantastic!

Love the ending line - man, he is *GOOD*!!!!!

[xchrom]

20. du rec.

[mucifer]

21. Love it! Love it! Love it! I hope the network doesn't try to force him to apologize.

[LWolf]

22. That's so good I'm going to watch it again.

Which is saying a lot for me; one of the things I do best is to avoid video.

[NuclearDem]

24. Trivia: Every time Stuart Varney is on a TV screen at all in any capacity

I flip the respective TV the bird.

[Lizzie Poppet]

25. Wow. Just...wow.

Don't see total and complete ownage like that too often. Brilliant...

[bullwinkle428]

27. Fell down in my kitchen laughing at this last night!

K&R!

KNEW it would be "talk of the DU" this morning!

[spanone]

28. stuart varney...what a fucking prick. heartless prick

Last edited Fri Dec 6, 2013, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

the crap that pours out of the mouths of the faux hosts is preposterous to the point that you have to believe they can't believe it.

it's such heartless, inconsiderate hatred for poor people that's hard to fathom.

who raised these people with no compassion whatsoever?

it's sad and sickening at the same time.

[AAO]

69. I'm convinced Varney believes what he says.

He's either evil or stupid. I'd go with both. And yes, he's either the prettiest dick or the ugliest vagina on TV.

[Cha]

87. It could be that before their first day at fox..

the employees are all required to take an intense training seminar that involves insensitivity training and de rigueur brainwashing techniques to be applied liberally to their viewers. you know.. the fox truthers.

[spanone]

96. it's hard to fathom how heartless these bastards are.

[TeamPooka]

112. don't forget the lobotomy. nt

[Cha]

114. Of course!

[Zorra]

29. Thank you, and Jon Stewart. Conservatives are clearly proud of being evil, murderous, greedy scum.

This is the best, clearest illustration of the very real universal moral and ethical depravity of conservatives, RW christians, republicans, etc. EVAH!!!.

Disgusting!


This is why we liberals to continue fight conservatives/republicans with our time, energy, and cash on a daily basis. They are morally diseased, and if given free rein, these heartless, sociopathic authoritarian fascists would create another Third Reich fascist hell in the US.

I recommend that we spread this video around.

[Gothmog]

32. Jon was in great form last night

[Douglas Carpenter]

33. knr

[TxDemChem]

34. That was hilarious!

I can't stand Varney's ass

[L0oniX]

35. LMFAO perfect. n/t

[Eleanors38]

36. I note Stewart doesn't want to relegate the Pope to the religion group.

Some in DU should watch this.

[SomethingFishy]

38. K&R...

Takedown!

[Rozlee]

39. Wasn't there a vampire named Varney?

At least the literary one had more humanity than the FOX brand.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. The only other Varney I know of is Jim Varney

[Rozlee]

118. Ah yes, Jim Varney.

Taken too soon, but his legacy of humor and laughter live on.

[me b zola]

46. Loved this! I had to interrupt my laughing out loud to explain to mr z who jamie dimon is

...then I continued on.

Thank you, Jon.

[Kurovski]

47. I will forever remember Dimon as the dog who barked "Everyone should always pay their mortgage"

I assume while twirling his handlebar moustache.

After all the damage to the market, after all the problems with underwater mortgages created by "them", that was his suggestion.

Maybe Varney also has a part-time gig tying uncooperative young women to the tracks for Jamie? Not one fucking thing would surprise me anymore when it comes to the Wall-Streeters and banksters.

[maddiemom]

56. I'll never forget the slavering awe and respect many congressmen accorded

Dimon when he testified before them. Said it all.

[rufus dog]

66. Not only that

The Douchebag testified while wearing presidential cuff links. The asshole walked into congress and basically gave them the message he was in charge and the Repukes sucked his dick. They thought it was cutE because Obama was the President. You see, it is completely acceptable to demean the office if a Democrat is in charge. I

[hootinholler]

65. Obviously it's someone whom financial reporters would felate...

But I have no clue who he actually is. Off to google (again, it's getting tiresome )

ETA: CEO and COB of JPMorgan

[Whisp]

48. Huge K&R, this is GENIOUS. n/t

[colsohlibgal]

49. That Was Awesome

Certainly true figuratively.

[docgee]

50. LMFAO!!

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

51. Does that dick taste expensive...

...Varney?

[polichick]

53. Brilliantly crude!

[maddiemom]

54. Priceless! Again. Stewart and his writers nailed it.

[pam4water]

57. I laughed so hard when I heard that.

[bpositive]

58. That was fricken

Awesome!

[2Legit]

59. Epic!

I saw this last night and nearly fell off my couch! Jon Stewart is absolutely fearless and right on target. I learn more from him and Rachel Maddow about what is going on in the world than I do anywhere else.

[NC_Nurse]

61. That was amazing!

Thanks for posting

[joshcryer]

62. Has anyone here actually read the EVANGELII GAUDIUM?

Because let me tell you, it doesn't actually bash capitalism all that much. Really, it doesn't. If anything it justifies the wealth class.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

89. I have read it.

It's on-line here. And I think you are misreading it, joshcryer.

Here are the significant sections, 53-58 (footnotes omitted):

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

Nowhere in the document does he mention specific policies to counter these problems. He doesn't call for increased taxation of the rich. (The word "tax" occurs only once in the document, in a passage that criticizes tax evasion and corruption.) He doesn't sing the praises of collectivism. He doesn't attack the principle of private property, nor does he advocate public ownership of the means of production.

It's worth noting that this pope has a long track record of opposing liberation theologans in his homeland of Argentina. Still, I guess it's theoretically possible that the pope really is a closet Maoist. After all, he does say (in one of my favorite passages): "I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting, and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and clinging to its own security."

That's pretty subversive stuff. But the point here is that he doesn't actually offer up specific policy proposals to cure the problems he's describing. That's because he's analyzing a spiritual crisis. He's not outlining programs. He's describing a malaise that he sees in the world and challenging us to fix it.

He's exhorting us (a pronoun that expressly includes politicians and world leaders) to look closely at our own behavior and its consequences. That's why his text is an "exhortation," a rumination on issues of justice and charity, not a white paper from some Washington think tank. Francis is inspired by the radical message of Jesus: "Whoever has two cloaks should share with the person who has none. And whoever has food should do likewise." (Luke 3:11)

[joshcryer]

90. Yeah, but, it starts off with stuff like:

2. The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience. Whenever our interior life becomes caught up in its own interests and concerns, there is no longer room for others, no place for the poor. God’s voice is no longer heard, the quiet joy of his love is no longer felt, and the desire to do good fades. This is a very real danger for believers too. Many fall prey to it, and end up resentful, angry and listless. That is no way to live a dignified and fulfilled life; it is not God’s will for us, nor is it the life in the Spirit which has its source in the heart of the risen Christ.

6. There are Christians whose lives seem like Lent without Easter. I realize of course that joy is not expressed the same way at all times in life, especially at moments of great difficulty. Joy adapts and changes, but it always endures, even as a flicker of light born of our personal certainty that, when everything is said and done, we are infinitely loved. I understand the grief of people who have to endure great suffering, yet slowly but surely we all have to let the joy of faith slowly revive as a quiet yet firm trust, even amid the greatest distress: “My soul is bereft of peace; I have forgotten what happiness is… But this I call to mind, and therefore I have hope: the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, his mercies never come to an end; they are new every morning. Great is your faithfulness… It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the Lord” (Lam 3:17, 21-23, 26).

7. Sometimes we are tempted to find excuses and complain, acting as if we could only be happy if a thousand conditions were met. To some extent this is because our “technological society has succeeded in multiplying occasions of pleasure, yet has found it very difficult to engender joy”.[2] I can say that the most beautiful and natural expressions of joy which I have seen in my life were in poor people who had little to hold on to. I also think of the real joy shown by others who, even amid pressing professional obligations, were able to preserve, in detachment and simplicity, a heart full of faith. In their own way, all these instances of joy flow from the infinite love of God, who has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ. I never tire of repeating those words of Benedict XVI which take us to the very heart of the Gospel: “Being a Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction”.[3]

You shouldn't want things, you should be happy being poor, basically, the freaking tenants of the class system the church has espoused and perpetuated for centuries.

And of course, the really sad part is here:

204. We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

Oops. The workforce is reduced by automation. Yaknow, the technology he denounces as the second thing he literally says.

220. People in every nation enhance the social dimension of their lives by acting as committed and responsible citizens, not as a mob swayed by the powers that be. Let us not forget that “responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation”.[180] Yet becoming a people demands something more. It is an ongoing process in which every new generation must take part: a slow and arduous effort calling for a desire for integration and a willingness to achieve this through the growth of a peaceful and multifaceted culture of encounter.

Status quo, of course. Dear Pope, do you not know what Christ meant when he said Render unto Caesar?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

94. I still think you are misreading it

The first bit you quote does not say "the poor should be happy in their poverty". To quote the first sentence, which you give in bold, "The great danger in today’s world, pervaded as it is by consumerism, is the desolation and anguish born of a complacent yet covetous heart, the feverish pursuit of frivolous pleasures, and a blunted conscience." He is decrying consumerism, a "feverish pursuit" of "stuff". He goes on to give essentially the same message St. Paul gives in Philippians 4:4-7

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near. Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

He is saying that such joyfulness is the proper attitude for the Christian.

Section 204 is not "sad". It is, in fact, a denunciation of the unfettered free-market capitalism that discards workers in search of greater profits. One would think that any DUer would applaud what he is saying.

And he is most certainly NOT calling for "status quo" in section 220. He is saying that it is a "moral obligation" for everyone to work for the betterment of society. You are so seriously misreading this one as to have him saying the exact opposite of what he is saying.

[joshcryer]

95. 204 has nothing to do with capitalism, though, it's automation.

Automation is causing such a worker disparity, and it's only going to get worse. Look at how, a recent example for strikers, McDonalds is already extremely automated as it is.

My problem starts from an anti-capitalist POV, except, one that recognizes capitalist 'success':









I fear a world ran by corporations that "works." And that happens if we allow ourselves to operate within the confines of the political system that is incidentally ran by the very corporations. No where does he challenge us to uproot the political system, only in 220 does he challenge us to "not be swayed like mobs" to the powers that be. That's literally what the statistics show us doing. So when someone comes out, this day and age, and says "we must reduce poverty," and we're on a trajectory to reduce it anyway in 10-15 years, it comes off as not really a true commitment to anything. It's something already happening. The "anti-stuff" message is just delaying the expectation of urgency and it serves, in my view, as only a propagandistic effect to chill people from wanting a better standard of living (and therefore challenging the status quo) because there is no virtue in that.

Francis has, of course, elsewhere, decried the effect of the "business lobby" but we'd be remiss to ignore his mentioning of the "gay lobby" and the "Masonic lobby..." naturally. Because those are lobby's we need to concern ourselves with.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

100. It has everything to do with capitalism and nothing to do with automation

Let's have the section again:

We can no longer trust in the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.

Now, show me where automation is even implied in that passage.

No, you are apparently deliberately misconstruing what he says. He says that those who believe in the panacea of trickle-down economics express "a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system."

Francis isn't saying that capitalism is inherently bad. What he's saying is that we shouldn't fetishize it. We shouldn't treat it as if it's beyond reproach, something that we can't even dare to change. "We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose." He worries about the "interests of a deified market."

BTW, here is part of John Paul II's Centesimus annus, section 42, (italics added):

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by “capitalism” is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a “business economy”, “market economy” or simply “free economy”. But if by “capitalism” is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces.

[joshcryer]

102. There's no assumption of goodness...

I'm saying that the current capitalist mode of production is failing to create "sources of employment" because of automation. When it does create "sources of employment" it's the sweatshop and increasingly minimum wage jobs. And you and I both know Francis isn't referring to those kinds of jobs because he prerequisites it with "better distribution of income." You can't get that "better distribution of income" if you are automating things, because profits are easier to be had when you remove the laborer from the equation.

I'm saying the "integral promotion of the poor" is happening anyway, because of statistics and globalization.

I'm saying that "reducing the work force" is due to automation.

Yes, profit is one reason. It's more profitable to automate cooking Chicken McNuggets than to train someone to cook them properly. But it happens regardless of whether or not you "tame" capitalism. I do agree that if not in check "radical capitalistic ideology could spread" but I feel as though without coming out and saying it straight up, capitalism needs to be put into check, it's not solving anything.

I remain convinced that "help the poor" is a very small commitment to make for anyone on the world stage right now because global poverty levels are crashing (ie, going away): http://www.gapminder.org/

If we can't acknowledge that and acknowledge that corporate fascism is the greatest threat we face now then I dunno, I've failed to make the argument.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

103. "corporate fascism is the greatest threat we face now"

Popes Francis and John Paul are saying that corporatism is A Bad Thing. Why you keep nattering about job automation is beyond my comprehension, since it is wholly unmentioned by Francis in his letter, and has little or nothing to do with it anyway.

Francis is saying that the present economic set-up -- which I assume is what you mean by "corporate fascism" -- is a bad thing for people in general. So why do you insist that he is supporting the status quo?

As I said in my first post, I believe you are seriously misreading Evangelii Gaudium.

[joshcryer]

104. I consider the Catholic Church a corporation in and of itself.

It literally is with it's corporations sole. But I'm sure at this point you are no longer interested in a conversation.

US Catholic Church a $170 billion business

I frankly think that you're intending to act as if I'm an idiot rather than address my concerns, repeatedly saying I am misreading rather than responding to my points, accusing me of "nattering about job automation" when I link the evidence that backs up my claims. I have had similar accusations by creationists and climate change denialists, when it gets to that point, I know the conversation is basically over.

You have your beliefs, and I believe the Catholic Church is clouding the issue by making an essentially non-committal statement that the whole world pretended was a sea change in how it does "business." CEOs go on Undercover Boss to cover up their shitty business practices. We'll see if the Church changes on anything substantiative (gay marriage, gay priests, female priests, married priests in all sects, most importantly, abortion and contraceptives).

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

106. " I'm sure at this point you are no longer interested in a conversation."

I am interested. But when you insist on claiming that Pope Francis is saying the exact opposite of what he is saying; when you go on at length about automating jobs, and so on, then all I can say is that you fail to understand what Evangelii Gaudium is talking about.

[joshcryer]

107. It's not the exact opposite though.

I agree with him about profit, I simply disagree as to how we get there in the critique and if the critique doesn't get there correctly, it has little to no effect. The Pope has quite literally the ears of a billion people.

Change could happen so quick...

[maddiemom]

123. Thank you for making me aware. I'm taking time to absorb, and plan to

continue reading up. Those who really need to absorb this probably will never find the time that I (retired) have or the interest, if they can even find it. I know about two people who might be interested and find the time and I will pass it on. BTW, I'm a retired teacher who's taught Hamlet, and also had a Norwegian grandfather.How did you come up with Fortinbras?

[Enthusiast]

63. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.....nt

[Moral Compass]

64. If this was spontaneous...

Stewart stopped himself in his tracks when this bon mot popped out of his mouth. Seemed very bemused by what he'd just said. I'd like to think it was an ad lib. If it was it was BRILLIANT.

Varney is such a piece of human filth. He's the worst of the worst. He makes the rest of the crew look almost okay.

His glib dismissal of the emotion behind the morality of a living wage is classic upper class privilege. Although he's an Australian he sounds like a snooty upper class Englishman sneering at the lower classes.

What a worthless prig. That this sells to anyone in any country is shameful. That his brand of blatant classism sells in a country that once prided itself on a core ethic of egalitarianism is obscene.

[Skittles]

68. not sure why people think Varney is Aussie

he is British-born, and has lived in New Jersey almost 20 years

[Moral Compass]

70. Then he's exactly what he sounds like

An upper class British prig of the worst sort. I thought that Varney was Australian because I'd seen that in multiple places on this site.

I should have looked. Just looked at Wikipedia and he's very, very British. Thanks for letting me know.

[Skittles]

71. actually, I've always thought an Aussie accent sounds like a mixture of Brit and American

[freshwest]

72. SCREAMING with laughter. I haven't laughed that much all year. Thanks!

[Moostache]

74. Kudlow and Varney...

Two of the biggest pieces of shit in the known universe.

The only thing I would want to watch from either one of them (with respect to Carlin) is them being loaded into a large catapult and flung right into a brick wall!

[Kurovski]

86. Kudlow rambles on about what a hot little Catholic he is and how he "adores" the pope.

So in even this he sucks, seeing as adoration is to be reserved for God alone.

Bogus blowhard.

[RoccoR5955]

75. There shouldn't only be a higher minimum wage,

but there should be a maximum allowable income.
For instance, any income, from all sources over, say $2,000,000 a year should be taxed at 100%.

[spooky3]

76. The line in the OP was stolen from Kathy Griffin

She used a very similar line in her New Year's Eve performance with Anderson Cooper several years ago. Maybe she stole it from somebody else.

[Kurovski]

84. I think the line is even older than that.

I remember a waitress who used it back in the 80's.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. It's a common response to hecklers in the comedy biz, and has been for 40 years or more

Kathy Griffin didn't make it up.

[spooky3]

109. If you read my post, you saw that I acknowledged that KG may have stolen it from someone else.

[Kurovski]

116. It's in public domain. Like Shakespeare!

Great new twist on it in this case, though.

[sheshe2]

78. Bravo, Jon Stewart!

[dchill]

79. Bang!

Boom!

[russspeakeasy]

80. Damn, I needed that !!!

[Volaris]

83. Infallability SUX when you disagree with it, don't it?

Welcome to the world of Not Hating TEH GAY!!!! (in other words, the world the REST of us live in.)
Yep. 2016 is when the Split happens...American "Christians" will have to chose which they Love more...Christ, or the Moneychangers.

Welcome to the new Democratic House Majority.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. That was great.

[mdbl]

93. Thank for this link Rufus Dog!

John Stewart makes me laugh and cry at the same time.

[JNelson6563]

99. Omg! lol!

I wish Jon Stewart would run away with me!

[Owl]

101. Excellent!!!!

[blackspade]

110. Holy fuck that was funny.

[arely staircase]

119. "I go to church to save my soul" Stuart Varney

"Then why aren't you there right now?" Jon Stewart.

[AsahinaKimi]

121. I hope Stewart Varney sees that.....

I hope he gets so mad, he breaks his snooty nose walking out the front door.

[LWolf]

122. This keeps popping back up, and

I keep watching it again...and again...

and it doesn't get old.