Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
States negotiating immunity for banks over foreclosures – Yahoo! News – “If you let us pay a little fine, we promise never to do it again, even though, really, we kind of are still.” Why are states “negotiating” with banks over their malfeasance? (Besides the obvious answers, of course.)
Vermont Lesbian Couple Sues Reception Venue For Discriminating Due To ‘Personal Feelings’ – “Personal feelings” (even if religiously based) can be used to try and justify discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, politics, weight, age, and, yes, religion. The actions of the inn in question were clearly illegal under Vermont law — a law that already allows a number of exemptions, none of which the inn qualifies for. The idea that the law is somehow discrimination against religion, as dolts like Bryan Fischer claim, is true only to the degree that it means that my personal religious views don’t grant me exemptions from whatever laws I don’t care for.
10 Fantasy Book Series That Could Replace Harry Potter at the Movies – While I’d love any of these (in theory), I don’t think any of them could do the Potter bit again, especially if you consider the role that kids had in making HP a success. Now, if you want the next “Lord of the Rings,” there are some definite contenders here, though some of the others are a bit on the weird side to appeal to the mass audience.
New York Bishop Orders Gay Clergy to Marry – Christian News – Makes perfect sense, if you realize it’s an Episcopal bishop. The Episcopal Church, by and large, has given gay, partnered clergy something of a pass in formalizing a “committed, monogamous, faithful relationship” because the opportunity to marry their partner wasn’t available. As that changes, it’s reasonable for the Church to hold gays to the same rules as they hold straights.
Reproductive freedom: Opting out on religious grounds | The Economist – “Being part of America means having some level of tolerance for people’s different preferences without constantly demanding to secede. Once you start down the road of demanding monetary exceptions for your private moral convictions, there’s nowhere to stop.”
Why the Wealthy Need the Welfare State – “The Gilded Age plutocrats who first acceded to a social welfare system and state regulations did not do so from the goodness of their hearts. They did so because the alternatives seemed so much more terrifying.” The ones of this age might consider just that.
Where Exactly Have the Mainline Churches Been for the Last Forty Years? – I’ve seen a lot of the above in the Episcopal Church as I’ve belonged to it for the last 15 years (and learned about its past before that). And, yes, I see a number of positive signs that the church is beginning to address the problems described.
Harry Potter: the anti-geek – That’s an interesting analysis — and one that rings true (though there’s more to the story than just that).
Warren Buffett: I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. – That would certainly end it — but it begs the more important issues of (a) when it should be ended and (b) how to do so. Which are the real sticking points.
Bolling concedes, ‘We did go a bit too far’ – “I’m glad Bolling is ‘sorry.’ I’d be even more pleased if his ugly worldview didn’t lead him to say things like this in the first place.” Fox News is endlessly fascinating …
The most egregious of the bogus claims – “And so we’re left once again with the eternal question: whether Bachmann is deliberately trying to deceive the public or is strikingly ignorant. I can’t say with certainty which of these two options is the right explanation, but I also can’t think of any alternatives.”
Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Brain Surgeons – (Rolls eyes.) If my daughter said she wanted to be a brain surgeon, I’d support her whole-heartedly. I’d also have life-work balance conversations with her (before and after and probably naggingly). Ultimately, it’s her responsibility to handle (and to divide child-rearing duties and time allocations with her mate).
Badass Quote of the Day [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – The War on Drugs (Marijuana Edition) is so clearly a failure and carries such terrible costs in lives and money, that clearly it’s still around for other reasons — budget/power protection, seizure laws, feel-good law-and-order posturing by pols, racism, classism, or just the general slide into a police state.
Fanny Pack-Wearing Terrorist Ignites Montana Shoot Out [Fugitives] – “Now, replace ‘David Burgert’ in any of the articles on the manhunt with, say, a non-white dude sounding name and… shazam! You’ve got an international terrorism media feeding frenzy.” Because, of course, we can’t refer to American white guys as “terrorists” because, well, OPPRESSION! OBAMA! GULAGS!
Too Big To Fail? Little Ol’ Me? – Too big to fail if there are bail-out dollars around … too small to matter if there are regulations afoot that might avoid future bail-outs. Got it.
Herman Cain Would Want A Loyalty Test From Muslims In His White House – Right. It’s not “discrimination” if you just ask people of a certain religion (or race, or …) to take a special loyalty oath. And, of course, no true terrorist who wanted to “kill all of us” would ever lie in taking such an oath … Dolt.
Google Chromebook – The First Reviews Are In! – I’m considering work I do that is non-browser-based. This wouldn’t work for me, as I currently work, as my only computer, but as a second system (assuming WiFi is available) it would serve as well as a netbook or tablet.
The post-PC era is happening, but not yet at the expense of PCs – I’m sure I could find use for a tablet, but a huge amount of my computer activity requires a keyboard — and not a virtual one on a tablet. What I think the “Post-PC Era” means that that a PC is not the only choice you have for computing and communication — and, yes, as suggested, people are likely to have multiple devices they use for different circumstances.
Your Body is Obscene if You’re a Woman, or Look Like One – “Pejic isn’t being censored because he’s skinny. He’s being censored because he is styled like a woman, and women’s torsos are sexualized to the point that we consider them obscene while men’s are not.” Which is what makes this so sad and so hysterical. Is the fear that someone will be offended by a bare woman’s torso without anyone having the chance to explain it’s actually a man? Or that some guy will get all lustful over it, thinking it’s a woman, then fly into a rage when they realize it’s not? It’s just plain crazy. Granted, I have a vested interest in wanting to see pictures of women’s torsos, but frankly our sexually schizophrenic American society is just plain crazy-making.
ginandtacos.com » Blog Archive » PROHIBITION – “The purpose of the War on Drugs is not to keep people safe or healthy. The purpose of the War on Drugs is to put people in prison, and from that perspective it has been a smashing success.”
Palestine – “Or will it turn out that our paeans to non-violence were just cynical tactics in an amoral international power contest staged by militaristic Israeli and American right-wing groups whose elective affinities lead them to shape a common narrative of the alien Arab/Muslim threat?”
This is an occasional series of posts about the scripture read at our church and what it means to me. I attend an Episcopal service, and we are in Year A of the Revised Common Lectionary.
This week’s readings are particularly meaningful, as my parish church is named after the Good Shepherd, and it is readings about Jesus as the Good Shepherd that are the focus today.
This being the post-Easter period, the lectionary uses readings from the Acts of the Apostles rather than the Old Testament for the first reading. This one is popular among “liberal” congregations (emphasis mine):
Those who had been baptized devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.
Damned commie hippies!
I’ve long believed that the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was its adoption by Constantine as the state religion of the Empire. Once the religion became inextricably linked to the civil authorities and the power of the state, it could only become, itself, more temporal, more material, more officious and power-hungry. While I think separation of Church and State is good for the State, I also think it’s even better for the Church. Once God and Caesar are conjoined, it’s difficult to tell what to render to whom.
Anyway, it’s worth reading what those early Christians did, and how they lived. They were together, commune-like, and “had all things in common.” Those who had any wealth pooled it together, selling their possessions, and giving to those who were in need.
This, then, is a key message of Jesus, and one that those with a stake in material goods tend to quickly gloss over. Jesus was not about Religious Rules (indeed, he railed against the Law). He called for us to love God, and to love our neighbors. Loving God is relatively easy, in some ways — loving our neighbors as ourselves, to the point of giving up our worldly possessions for them as they are needed, and to even give up our lives as necessary, is quite a different thing, and much harder in many ways.
Indeed, I don’t claim any special virtue here. Yeah, I give to a number of charitable concerns, but I’m also about to take a very nice vacation to Italy, and not as some sort of pilgrimage. I’m bound up on the love of the world as much as anyone else — but I try to at least recognize the obligations Jesus places on me to care for my fellows.
After a reading of Psalm 23 (the quintessential Good Shepherd verse), we get into something that seems much darker and more stereotypically ashes-and-sackcloth — but which really follows the same thread as the reading from Acts.
It is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.
“He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”
When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were going astray like sheep, but now you have returned to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
Martyrdom is not easy to talk about these days, but it’s simply the ultimate expression of that self-sacrificing spirit discussed in the previous reading, as exemplified by Jesus.
What’s remarkable is how, in juxtaposition to this, we have Christians today getting the self-righteous vapors because some people have the nerve to publicly disagree with them. Imagine!
Some Christian says, “Gays are sick, twisted, evil, perverted, sub-humans who ought to be locked up, deported, reprogrammed, or, even possibly, stoned to death.”
Someone else says, “I believe you are trying to impose your religious faith upon our legal system.
Said Christian replies, “I’M BEING OPPRESSED! SOON, EASTER AND CHRISTMAS WILL BE ILLEGAL! JUST SEND MONEY!”
Really?
“When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.” Granted, that’s easier said than done, but one would expect Christians to at least recognize the way they should be reacting to those who abuse them (even leaving aside that “disagreement” is not “abuse”).
I’m not going to quote this one at length because John is sometimes a bit zany. Basically, Jesus riffs on the faithful-as-sheep motif, with religious leaders as the folks trying to lead the sheep. But there are lots of illegitimate would-be shepherds who jump the fence into the sheepfold to steal the sheep that are there, even though they don’t recognize the false shepherd’s voices.
Jesus, though, proclaims himself “the gate,” through which all legit shepherds will pass into and out of the sheepfold:
Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.
There’s an old set of jokes that notes that shepherds are just raising sheep to be “fleeced,” or slaughtered. But the folks of Judea would have recognized the metaphor — whatever the ultimate fate of the sheep, the immediate need and duty of the shepherd was for them to be fed and watered and protected from thieves and predators. That’s what the good shepherd does, even at sacrifice to himself. That’s the rule for looking for a good shepherd to follow — the extent to which he actually emulates the self-sacrificing and caring nature of Christ for the entire flock.
The false shepherds who seek to steal the sheep, to exploit them rather than keep them well, to prey upon them in fact, are to be rejected. The metaphorical resemblance to “just send money!” televangelists and similar Internet sharks is to me, far too obvious — especially when the message from those false shepherds is less about care of the flock (even its weakest and most vulnerable members), but about keeping the sheep afraid. Which any livestock specialist will tell you is a way to make the animals stressed and thus less healthy and robust and capable of facing the world and surviving on their own.
The Good Shepherd seeks sheep that “have life, and have it abundantly.” The false shepherds seek sheep that tremble and shy away from life. I know which I choose to follow.
(There is an understandable rejection of the idea of equating people to sheep — though usually more along the lines of individual rejection — “I am not a sheep” — than rejection of the idea of other people being sheep. I’m willing to include myself in the metaphor, if only because I know I resemble silly sheep as often as not, and am just as likely to go astray.)
Oh look. The Birthers are already playing with the new toy President Obama gave them. – I think it was probably a reasonable timing to convince Hawaii to make an exception to provide the long form birth certificate. But the point was not so much to shut up the birthers (who are so deranged that they’ll come up with new conspiracy theories) as to finally put paid to the “why doesn’t he show his birth certificate?” crap. Which, one would hope, would further discredit (to the rest of the nation) the whole right-wing zaniness that is birtherism.
Ayn Rand and the Conservative Contradiction – “Any politician or media figure who claims to be an admirer of both Rand and Jesus is either hopelessly confused or an out-and-out liar.”
The Ancient Japanese Tsunami Stones Kept Villagers Alive [Japan] – It’s fashionable to poke fun at tradition and ancient community wisdom. And there’s sometimes reason for that. But it’s worth at least considering they might know what the heck they were talking about …
Mike Warnke and Marriage Equality – “Warnke controlled most of the market selling scary stories about a conspiracy of satanists, but there’s a lot more competition in the marketplace among the fraudsters selling lies about the Big Gay Menace. The audience eagerly buying those lies, however, is much the same. And that audience is still seeking the same things — excitement, simplicity and pure, uncut indignation.”
Senator To Propose New Internet Sales Tax – Certainly people (cough) are more likely in many circumstances to purchase something tax-free through Amazon than taxed from their local bricks-and-mortar store (unless they want it in their hands RIGHT NOW). On the other hand, the taxpayer “impact” of Amazon, vs. Best Buy, is much lower. So the only issue is the “fairness” of states getting or not getting money for what I buy. Let’s not make it any more noble than that.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: A Love Affair Against the Common Good – One would think the conflict between Rand and Christianity would get as much play on the Right as the love affair between Rand and unfettered Capitalism. It’s telling which aspect of Rand makes the GOP go ga-ga.
Robert Reich (Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich) – “If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits” But … but … that would make them fractionally less rich!
Norton Disables Itself After One Year – Wow! If it’s a way to automatically get rid of Symantec software without reformatting your machine, it might even be worth it. (Side note: Way to go, Symantec, in driving still more people to Microsoft’s free AV solution.)
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Quote of the Day – I would ask why anyone still cares about anything McCain says, except that he remains a regular on political talk shows and the press.
BBC News – Academics to ’embrace Wikipedia’ – There’s nothing particularly wrong with Wikipedia that awareness of its weaknesses and strengths can’t deal with. It’s a fabulously useful source of information — so long as you drill down appropriately into the source data.
Yglesias » Arab Autocrats Think Fighting Gaddafi Will Help Them Maintain Power – “There’s an obvious question as to what, in reality, American policy in the Arab world is. Is this part of a policy of boosting democratic change in the region, or is it part of a policy of bolstering the position of the Persian Gulf dictators who are important clients of American arms manufacturers?”
David Barton’s Anti-Islam Expert Is Disgraced Former FBI Agent – “Apparently, the Muslim Brotherhood is so powerful that it managed to get Guandolo to sleep with the key government witness he was supposed to be protecting in order to discredit him and stop him from exposing their plot to take over the United States.”
It’s been a while since I pointed out how Bryan Fischer is a dolt. I think I need to correct that.
(Fischer is Director of Issues Analysis for the American Family Association, host of the talk radio program Focal Point on American Family Radio, and posting on the AFA-run blog Rightly Concerned — but the AFA for some reason has a disclaimer at the bottom of all his posts that he doesn’t really speak for them.)
The American judicial system is something of an anomaly for many on the Right. On the one hand, you have The Horrible Example of Liberal Judges Passing Their Own Laws and Letting Evil People Go. On the other hand, It’s Part of the American Government and What Makes Us Exceptional (Except When the Liberals Get Involved) So Yay Team!
Federal officials are planning to move the murder trial of Jared Loughner from Tucson to California. This is a terrible, terrible idea, and contrary to biblical concepts of justice.
Innocent blood was shed in Tucson, and the public servants of Tucson should be entrusted with the responsibility and authority to execute justice on behalf of the victims and their families.
With an emphasis on “execute.”
The point of change of venue is that it’s difficult for people in a given community to render a fair and impartial judgment of the evidence presented at trial when all they’ve read in the papers and heard on the TV and perhaps even had friends or acquaintances tell them is “THAT GUY THEY ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF A HORRIBLE CRIME! HE DID IT! CRUCIFY! CRUCIFY!”
It is a perversion of justice to deprive this community of the ability to deal with the monstrous act of evil.
Remarkably enough, the justice system is not meant primarily to give a community a sense of closure and satisfaction that The Bad Guy Got His in the End.
In fact, it is designed to try to establish facts, and render judgment based on same, in order to (a) punish the guilty and (b) protect the community from further harm. Pursuing vengeance is not on the docket (and it’s amusing that the Right so often ignores that desire while criticizing the Left for pursuing “Feel Good” philosophies).
The murders of six innocent people by the Marxist-loving, Hitler-loving, Bible-hating, atheistic pothead radical leftwinger Loughner …
Okay, we’ll assume Bryan, you mean “Marx-loving.”
The whole “who Loughner ‘loved’ as an author” meme was based on, of all things, the dude’s Facebook page. The problem is, citing Marx and Hitler tells only part of the story. Loughner’s full reading list included not just Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto, but …
Animal Farm
Brave New World
The Wizard Of OZ
Aesop Fables
The Odyssey
Alice Adventures Into Wonderland
Fahrenheit 451
Peter Pan
To Kill A Mockingbird
We The Living (by Ayn Rand)
The Phantom Toll Booth
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
Pulp
Through The Looking Glass
Siddhartha
The Old Man And The Sea
Gulliver’s Travels
The Republic
Meno
If there’s a coherent literary or philosophical theory there, to label him right-wing or left-wing, I’d love to hear it. (And that assumes that he was actually being honest in his FB profile.)
That Loughner was an intermittent pot-head seems established. Declaring a pattern to his beliefs from his reading list implies a more coherent pattern of psyche than he seemed to possess.
… is traumatic enough on a city. Now to be deprived of the authority to see for themselves that justice is done is a second injustice.
This is, of course, silly. This particular case is for the federal crimes committed, in terms of the attack on a US Congressman, her aide, and US Federal Judge. The state of Arizona and the city of Tucson are free to pursue their own criminal charges.
In the ancient civil code of Israel, the community in which the murder had been committed had the responsibility to carry out justice.
That was generally true of most Iron Age civilizations, Bryan. They didn’t have TV and airplanes and cars and federal laws and Constitutions to make changes of venue both practical and procedurally possible.
The standards of evidence were very high – no one could be sentenced to death without the testimony of two or three eyewitnesses – but when the standard had been met, execution followed.
It’s worth nothing, by the way, that if biblical standards of evidence were still followed in America’s judicial system, as they once were, you would have only an infinitesimal chance of sending an innocent man to death row. Too many are sentenced to die or to long prison terms today based on the testimony of a single witness. That’s exactly how you get innocent people sent away for life. Once again, the Bible is the solution, not the problem.
The whole 2-3 people prove a case thing in the Bible is open to some interpretation, and arguably just means that two or three people were necessary to even bring a case. And, of course, that excludes the whole concept of forensic evidence as to crimes.
I actually agree, Bryan, that a single witness is too often the lynchpin for a major conviction. That said, I’m sure, Bryan, you’re aware that two witnesses were what allowed the Sanhedrin to convict Jesus of blasphemy.
The only exception was that when a man killed another man unintentionally – the death was accidental – he could flee for safety to a city of refuge until his trial was held. (It’s worthy of note that there was no system of incarceration in ancient Israel. A crime against property was taken care of through restitution plus a substantial penalty. A crime against life was taken care of through execution. Think of the money we could save if we returned to something approximating this simple but elegant system of justice.)
Yes, of course. And if the person couldn’t pay the fines, well, slavery was an adequate proxy. And if we executed everyone who killed, quickly, without appeals or a chance to argue that the justice system had been in some way flawed, we’d sure save a lot of money. Just what Jesus would do!
But if the “congregation” (read “jury of his peers”) found him guilty, then the “elders of his city shall send and take him from there (the city of refuge) and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die (Deuteronomy 19:12).”
Actually, that passage doesn’t argue any sort of jury or jurisprudence. “But if out of hate someone lies in wait, assaults and kills a neighbor, and then flees to one of these cities, the killer shall be sent for by the town elders, be brought back from the city, and be handed over to the avenger of blood to die.”
Supporters of changing venue argue that pretrial publicity may make an impartial jury impossible. This is ridiculous, and an insult to ordinary Americans, who take their solemn oath to base their verdict exclusively on evidence presented in court with extreme seriousness. The people of Tucson are capable of following the evidence wherever it leads and rendering a just verdict, and it’s an affront to them to think otherwise.
Oh, puhlease.
I consider myself a fairly moral and rational (and even Christian) person. If someone was accused of killing my wife, and the papers had been trumpeting that it was so (and, of course, if the papers, or the Internet, says it’s so, it must be true), I would recuse myself for fear that my emotions and desire for vengeance would have me leaping at the opportunity to have someone who “everyone knows” is guilty pay bloodily for their crime.
When a local jury in a local court renders a just verdict, …
When, or if?
… the community has the opportunity of experiencing the satisfaction of knowing that the community itself, which has the most intense level of motivation to see that justice is done, has dealt with a terrible crime committed in its midst.
Actually, the community itself has the most intense level of wanting to see someone punished, and is too often more than happy to go with whomever is pointed at first.
Tucson now will be robbed of that opportunity, …
Unless they file city charges against Loughner, which they can do.
… and a verdict will be handed down in another state by people who do not have the same intense desire this community has to see that the innocent blood of their loved ones, friends, and family members is avenged.
Wow, Bryan — you’re quick to point out the affront to the fair people of Tucson that they might not render a fair verdict, but somehow don’t see the insult to the fair people of San Diego that they would not have an intense desire to see justice done.
Oh, but wait — what’s important here is “the intense desire to see that the innocent blood is avenged.” Which vengeance may not have anything to do with justice or truth.
(“Vengeance,” by the way, is just a synonym for justice. You could look it up. See the dictionary: “vengeance: punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong.”)
Bryan, that you see vengeance and retribution as synonyms for justice speaks volumes.
Federal officials are prosecuting only the murders of Rep. Giffords’ congressional aide and the murder of Judge John Roll. This means no formal charges have yet been filed in the deaths of the four “civilians” (as the Associated Press inartfully put it) whose lives were also tragically taken.
Which is not the fault of the federal prosecutors (who don’t have a legal federal crime to prosecute for the other), nor does it have anything to do with the change of venue for their charges. The state and city certainly can file whatever charges they choose.
(I do agree, by the way, that it seems odd in such cases to base murder charges on some deaths and not on others. The argument would be, though, that a murderous attack on a government official is not so much different because one human life is more important than another, but because it represents an attack on society and democracy, in the person of its government. It’s certainly something that’s worth some discussion.)
Let’s hope the trials for these murders takes place in Tucson, that the perpetrator is swiftly sentenced to death, …
That the right perpetrator is determined, and that the judgment is both just and merciful.
… and that the sentence is carried out without delay.
Which supposes that the somehow flawed American justice system that would commit such an injustice as changing venue to San Diego is otherwise beyond reproach and perfect and incapable of procedural error or prosecutorial misconduct, such that an innocent person (or a person responsible for their actions) is not judged unjustly.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. would say, borrowing the words of the ancient prophet Amos, “Let justice roll down (in Tucson) like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24).
With all due respect to Dr King and the prophet Amos, I suspect that Jesus Himself would have something to say about mercy, about care for prisoners, and about what happens when popular opinion takes the place of impartial justice.
Human vengeance is not, in fact, justice. Allowing the passions of the crowd to influence judgment of truth (especially when death is on the line) is not justice. That’s not something that supports the American Family. And Bryan Fischer is a dolt for arguing that.
“Semper Fi Parents”‘ blog is supposedly about chronicling the Marine career of their daughter, which I think is an awesome thing to do. Apparently it’s also occasionally about screedifying about “those Liberals.” (That the underlying Blogspot site is called “RightWingWizKid” might betray a certain bias). So join us on this journey to discover why I (as an avowed Liberal) don’t believe in God. Which is the actual headline of the post: Why Liberals Don’t Believe in God:
Somehow I don’t think this is going to be a “fair and balanced” appraisal
There is a reason why many liberals don’t believe in God. It’s because he has been unfair to them. He gave something to the rest of us that liberals don’t have. It’s the only conclusion I can come to. In thinking over some basic liberal beliefs, the only logical conclusion is that liberals are missing a few brain cells, mainly the ones that give the rest of us common sense and prevent us from being hypocrites. Otherwise, how can they believe the following?:
So, just to be clear, the reason Liberals don’t believe in God is because they’re idiots, so they’re resentful of God for treating them unfairly. I’ll assume this is going to be part of the “writing about Constitutional and political events that I feel not only affect the men and women of America’s Armed Forces, but the freedoms the rest of us enjoy due to their sacrifice” and, in fact, meant to be … um … humorous. (Ah, wait, “political satire” is included in the list of things written about here — except there’s very little satirical in the rest of the post, unless it’s to be a satire of standard Conservative blogging points.) Ahem.
Note that accusing Liberals of being atheists and Not True Christians and the like is a fairly common calumny on the Right. They take horrible offense if anyone questions their piety, or their beliefs, but take it for granted that anyone to the left of Glenn Beck is probably suspect in their orthodoxy. That makes this a “ha ha funny” moment that really isn’t, because it’s joking about Liberals all being atheists (which I resent as a Christian and Liberal) in a way that goes right along with the libel that Liberals are all atheists.
Or, maybe, I’m just an overly-sensitive Liberal.
That Al Gore is a hero for speaking out against global warming. As he leaves his home, which has the highest energy consumption in the state, boards a private jet, and then takes a limo to wherever he is promoting his dogma.
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
As far as the whole “Al’s House is an Energy Hog,” I’ll point to this Snopes article on the subject.
Liberals applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of the average American.
Actually, I applaud the ACLU for fighting for the rights of all Americans. If we only fight for the rights of “average” Americans, or “majority” Americans, or “the ones who think like we do” Americans, we weaken all Americans’ rights.
While they overlook the fact that the ACLU wages war against such traditions as the Boy Scouts of America, the NRA, Christmas, and numerous other decent and moral things.
This makes it sound like the ACLU is particularly targeting the institutions involved just becuse they are “traditions” and “decent and moral things.” Which, of course, is just goofy. In the specific cases involved, the ACLU has fought for actual Constitutional principles. They’ve also defended a variety of conservative / traditional institutions on those same principles. The ACLU understands what “liberty and justice for all” means.
The fact that the ACLU lobbies for the “rights” of terrorists and provides legal representation to such groups as the North American Man-Boy Love Association doesn’t bother a liberal in the least.
And they defended the rights of the Nazis to march in Skokie, too. And it bothers me, insofar as I detest the Nazis. And NAMBLA. And (actual) terrorsts.
But if we only extend those “inalienable” Constitutional rights to the folks we agree with, then they aren’t rights, are they? They’re just majority privileges. Which means that any time the majority thinks that you or I are on the fringe and undesirable or embarrassing, we can have our privileges taken away, too.
Liberals support abortion on demand.
There’s this odd meme on the Right that Liberals looooove abortion. That they relish seeing how high they can push the abortion numbers. That they throw abortion parties and abortion picnics and hold abortion competitions. They want “abortion on demand” delivered to their doorstep as fast as movies on demand are — and they want you to pay for it, bwah-ha-ha! Ugh. Most Liberals I know (self included) aren’t particularly fond of abortion. We don’t particularly like it. We really don’t like the circumstances that cause women to think of it as the least worst alternative. While I am sure there are some Left Fringers who see abortion as a casual birth control method, that’s not how most Liberals see it. That’s not how most women who’ve had abortions see it. We’re with Bill Clinton’s desire to make it “safe, legal, and rare.” But as much as we dislike abortion, we’re also reluctant to make that decision for a woman, or to get between a woman and her doctor over whether it’s necessary or desirable. And we’ve very aware of how abortion restrictions (and the birth control restrictions that too many on the far Right are also covertly in favor of) have been used to oppress women in ages past, intentionally or just effectively.
And they oppose the death penalty.
So, somehow it’s okay to say “Liberals love abortion, but hate the death penalty” and not note the converse of “Conservatives hate abortion, but love the death penalty.” I give kudos to the Catholic Church for, on principle, opposing both.
Now I can understand an argument that “the unborn are innocent; the condemned are guilty.” That does draw a distinction — but many Liberals object to capital punishment, less over the idea of taking a life (though some folks’ eagerness to do so gets a little creepy), than over the idea that our justice system (especially when it comes to capital crimes) is so flawed that we can have little confidence that, in fact, the condemned are guilty. Anybody who claims they are against the killing of innocents would have to be willfully blind to think that doesn’t happen on Death Row in this country. Not everyone executed, certainly, doesn’t deserve it. But not everyone does — and that’s an unjust killing that’s done on behalf of all of us.
Liberals feel that it is fine for such experts as Danny Glover, Sean Penn, George Clooney and the like to air their views on American political policies. But when Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Glenn Beck share their thoughts, they should be restricted by a “Fairness” Doctrine.
I am not a particular fan of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but, regardless, there are no actual effort from the Left to re-impose it. Even if there was, it cuts both ways. It means that if Sean Penn gets to blather on the air for an hour, then Glenn Beck does. And, frankly, Sean Penn gives me hives. But I don’t think he’s any less intellectually, educationally, or tempermentally unqualified to shoot off his mouth than Limbaugh, Coulter, or Beck.
Honestly, I wish they’d all shut up — but I defend their rights to bloviate as they see fit and/or profitable.
Liberals openly support gay rights parades. Yet feel that Christmas Nativity scenes should be illegal.
Um … no. If any organization wants to apply for a parade permit — be it the Ultra Gay Leather Boys of Downtown Denver, or the Devout Christian Nativity Reenactors of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion — that’s fine. As long as everyone gets the opportunity and everyone abides by the rules, that’s what makes this nation great. My objection (and that of such whacko groups as the ACLU) to Nativity Scenes only involves their display on public land with public funding, and in circumstances where other religious (or irreligious groups) don’t get the same opportunity. In other words, where Christianity, exclusively, is being supported by the taxpayer.
My family has a nativity scene. We have it in our house. My church has one that it will display by the altar. Heck, if my church decided to display it on their front lawn (as some of my neighbors do), that’d be fine by me. But why should I be asking people who don’t believe in the Nativity to fund, through their taxes, the display of a nativity scene on government property?
That “racial profiling” of Muslims is wrong. But that returning war vets are “potential domestic terrorists.”
Again, a lovely mix-and-mismatch of different issues. Profiling of Muslims and/or Arabs (or Semites other than Israelis) is “wrong” because (a) it sweeps up a whole group of people based on the actions of a tiny minority (e.g., why not, then, profile Caucasians or Gun Owners based on the terrorist activities of Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, and the Huttaree?). (b) it’s ineffective (it assumes that all Islamicist terrorists are swarthy Middle Easterners, ignoring the various cases where that has not been the case), let alone the opportunity that such a profiling regime would provide actual terrorists to bypass security by coming up with fellow-travelers, mules, and others who would not trigger the “OMG HE’S AN AYRAB!” profile. (c) it encourages group prejudice, something we all (except for the proverbial WASP) have fine historical reasons to reject.
As to the whole veteran meme — yeesh. The DHS, after having issued a report about possible left-wing extremist groups in the US posing a domestic terror threat, has a report in the pipeline (initiated under the George W. Bush administration) about possible right-wing extremist terror … and the Right, once Obama is in office, goes ape-shit. It’s worth noting that the report suggests, as one element, returning veterans, as combat troops, might be targeted by right-wing extremist groups for recruitment. It didn’t suggest that all veterans were possible terrorists — it simply said that right-wing terrorists might see combat-trained veterans as possible recruits. Duh.
That it’s fine for a kid to bring a book about Adolph Hitler or Karl Marx to school. Yet that a kid carrying a Bible should be expelled.
I’m not sure what’s wrong about a kid bringing a book about Hitler or Marx, as historical subjects, to school. A kid obsessively reading books about Hitler would be more disturbing. I doubt any kid (or most adults) would be interested in reading much by Marx. The Bible-carrying kid expulsion does sound pretty outrageous. And, um, unrealistic. If someone would actually point to a case of the latter, I’d be more than happy to condemn it.
That Fox News is nothing more that an offshoot of the Republican Party.
Never mind that pretty much the entire active list of potential Republican candidates for President in 2012 have gigs with Fox. Never mind that Fox has openly declared itself “the voice of the opposition” to the Democratic Administration. Never mind that Fox’s owner, News Corp, contributed under orders of its president, Rupert Murdoch, significant sums to to Republican causes in this last election, and that Murdoch made significant personal contributions to GOP leaders’ campaigns.
And that Keith Olbermann, Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, etc. simply report the news without any personal bias.
I don’t know any Liberal who would make that statement about Keith Olbermann. They may like him (or not), but he’s clearly got a Point of View. And, in fact, he’s not actually hired as a newscaster, but as someone with a personal opinion. As is Chris Matthews. (And, for that matter, as is Bill O’Reilly.) Criticisms about Katie Couric are mostly because she managed to point out, through her interviews, that Sarah Palin is a dolt. And she did it by letting the subject’s words speak for themselves.
Liberals will cite the U.S. Constitution when they speak about the “separation of church and state. Despite the fact that that phrase is not included in the Constitution.
Well, no. I don’t know any Liberal who will claim the phrase “separation of church and state” is actually, word for word, in the Constitution. Really, can we have a citation here?
That said, the phrase was coined by Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, and echoed by Founding Father JamesMadison, and is clearly the sentiment of a number of the Founders as to what the First Amendment was meant to do. The term “separation of powers” isn’t in text of the Constitution, either, but I don’t hear anyone protesting that as a bogus concept. Well, except for for the folks who dislike the judiciary.
Liberals believe that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. In spite of the fact that he has done nothing to earn it, and he was only in office for a month or two when he was nominated.
Actually, most Liberals I know would agree that Obama had not done much to warrant a Nobel Peace Prize (except to be Not George W. Bush). In fact, that was my reaction when it came out. Ironically, many Liberals would think it even less deserved currently. (Personally, the Nobel Peace Prize is … of dubious distinction, in terms of some of the folks to whom it’s been awarded.)
They believe Obama and Pelosi when they say that universal health care will lead to a reduction in the federal deficit. They never ask how insuring the (supposedly) 45 million Americans without health insurance will make money.
Obama and Pelosi assert it because the Congressional Budget Office asserts it. Here’s why that works (hints: free competition, getting away from an “emergency room as baseline medical care” culture for the poor, seeking efficiencies in Medicare, taxation of “Cadillac” plans).
Liberals will repeatedly bash Judaism and Christianity.
Liberals dislike the assertive claims of cultural ownership and exceptional virtue and righteous dominance by Christianity in America. To the extent that Christianists claim “We’re Number One (and the government should give us money because of that, and, oh, our religious laws should be national laws, too), I will feel free to “bash” those Christian groups (while still being a regular churchgoer).
Liberals tend to support Judaism as a minority religion, though they also tend to reject American foreign policy knee-jerkingly supporting Israel no matter what it does. (As a Liberal, I support Israel’s right to exist and be secure; I reject its territorial aggrandizement and oppression of the Palestinian populations; I also reject the conservative elements of Israeli culture that seek to run it as a conservative Jewish theocracy).
But they become angry if they hear anyone say anything bad about Islam.
Nice blanket statement. I get angry when people assert that all Muslims are out to TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND CUT OFF OUR HEADS AND MAKE THIS THE UNITED STATES OF SHARIA. That’s just a xenophobia to go along with previous American cultural/immigration shifts (along the lines of “ALL IRISH AND ITALIANS ARE OUT TO TAKE OVER OUR COUNTRY AND COMPEL US TAKE COMMUNION AND MAKE THIS INTO THE UNITED STATES OF THE POPE”).
On the other hand, I (and other Liberals) are more than happy to criticize theocratic Islamic regimes and societies that impose cruel punishment upon (e.g.) rape victims and homosexuals (and, for that matter, Christians). And we do.
Ironically, I feel that Liberals (at least as I consider myself one) take the concept of “Don’t Tread on Me” more seriously than many Conservatives. We believe in inclusion (don’t tread on anyone) and protection for all, not just for the people we approve of.
So the next time you hear a liberal spouting off with some stupid statement, try and keep in mind that it’s not entirely their fault.
Yeah. We’ve probably been goaded into it by some conservative telling us we’re liberal idiots who hate God.
Note: in response to a comment on his original post, the author posted a full-length “defense” — which basically just restates all the points he originally made above.
Random Book Blogging: Harry Potter, Pokémon, And The Danger of Psychics – Apparently anything that isn’t stamped with JESUS on it in bright shiny letters is, to Ms Jacobs’ lights, Satanic. That includes Pokémon, throwing a penny in a wishing well, Harry Potter (of course) and, probably comic books.
A Futuristic Nightmare Ideology of Computerized Greed and Unchecked Financial Violence – Scary. Disgusting. Appalling. The problem, as described, is not solely about people being unjustly hurt, and hurt maliciously for gain, but with the disassembling of a whole system of trust — trust that property deeds and loan papers and the entire financial system can, in fact, be relied upon, accounted for, proven to be real. That destruction of trust will, in the long run, do the banks more harm than the toxic loans they were so eager to buy and flip.
Schools ban bracelets promoting cancer awareness – USATODAY.com – Because breasts can only be consider sexual objects, even just by reference, and even if in the context of breast cancer awareness. Right? Therefore it is lascivious and/or shameful to refer to them as “boobies.” (Would it be okay if the bracelets said “breasts” instead? How about “bosoms”? Or “mammary organs”?)
Antisemitism still thrives – “I’m not a fan of Israel’s policies — they’re becoming what they oppose — but there’s clearly no possibility that they could simply stop fighting for their existence and live in peace and tolerance with neighbors who promote the kind of hate shown above.”
Barton: God Will Hold You Accountable For How You Vote – “For Christians, voting is not a right, it’s a duty. It’s a stewardship that we owe to God and it’s a stewardship for which we’ll answer directly to him. One day we’ll stand before him and he’ll say ‘what did you do with that vote I gave you?’ And we’ll have to answer.” Actually, I agree with him fully on that one. Voting is an act of engagement with the people around us, and we are called to the touchstones of loving God and loving our neighbors through voting as much as with any other action. Of course, I suspect my conclusions of how my religious values guides me to vote will be a bit different from Barton’s.
Drug Wars – While there’s certainly cocaine involved, note the several pictures of hundreds of metric TONS of marijuana. That’s a huge cash crop for the drug lords, reason enough for all the violence, and it’s something we could trivially deprive them of if US drug policy were rationally administered.
Indiana suggests leaving disabled family members at homeless shelters – “Are there no workhouses …?” Welcome to yet another face of cheap-labor conservatism and taxed-enough-already partygoing. Is this the America the electorate is looking for? Because it’s where we’re headed.
Karl Rove And Sarah Palin Going To War? – Given the number of comments Rove has had to dial back in the past months, I don’t see him standing up to much criticism if Palin and her variety of supporters decide to fire back.
Government Withholds Records on Need for Expanded Surveillance Law – “A mandate requiring an easy-to-open ‘back door’ to electronic communications is an idea that was proposed and rejected over fifteen years ago because it would be ineffective, cause security vulnerabilities, and hurt American business — on top of the damage it would do to Americans’ privacy and free speech rights. Any attempt to require the same mandate today should start with a concrete and realistic evaluation of how often the government investigations are stymied by the lack of a ‘back door.’ Anything less than that is asking the public to blindly rubber stamp a flawed plan at a very high cost to Americans and American business.”
Climate change facts, for what that’s worth – “But do not always expect facts to convince. Someone who has arrived at their current stance due to something other than facts will not likely be persuaded to budge from it due to the facts. Some small percentage, some few, are honestly misinformed, and for them facts and information will be persuasive and liberating. They will be grateful for the link. But for most the problem is not simply one of a lack of accurate information. For them, finding their way back to the truth will require retracing the steps that led them away from it — a path that had little to do with information or facts.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Tim Lynch: Pot Shots at Prop 19 Fall Flat – The War on Marijuana has done little to reduce drug use, has cost tremendous amount of time and money in the law enforcement arena, and has crammed our jails with folks accused of possession or sale. It’s also been a huge money-maker for drug cartels. Will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug problems in the state of California? I doubt it — but it will certainly not make them worse.
What populism isn’t – “The Chamber didn’t even have to lift a finger — a deranged media personality told his audience, many of whom are middle-class and having a tough time in a struggling economy, to start throwing money at one of the nation’s wealthiest lobbying groups. And these folks did as they were told, voluntarily handing over donations to some of the country’s richest corporations. Why? So these corporations could elect candidates who will, in turn, favor policies that hurt the middle class, undermine workers and consumers, and boost these businesses’ profits.”
Quote of the Day – And in thirty years, Americans will be asking themselves, “How did we stop being the most important country on the planet?”
Limbaugh plays constitutional scholar – The “Left” has not been excluding religious people from government. It has been arguing, successfully, that using religion as the rule of law is unconstitutional. Ironically, the folks screaming the loudest about this (because it’s denying them the “right” to impose Christianity as the law of the land) also scream the loudest about how awful the prospect of Islamic “sharia” law becoming the law of the land is … even as they try to dismantle the constitutional provisions that would prevent that from happening.
‘This Isn’t The Lotto’: Sheriff Halting All Foreclosures Until Banks Prove Evictions Are Legal And Legitimate – “Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Tom Dart recently assembled a team to investigate the foreclosures in his area. His team found that out of 350 cases reviewed, ‘only 17 of them had the proper paperwork.’ Following the investigation, Dart announced Monday that he would be halting all evictions of homeowners — a step he took two years ago at the height of the financial crisis — and would not take part in any foreclosures unless the banks could provide the documentation to prove that the evictions were legitimate and legal.” Good for him. The sheriff should not be enforcing illegitimate and illegal requests.
Harry Potter and the Naked Cash-Grab – Not at all surprising … but I hope Warners’ earlier decision indicates they will make an effort to take the time to do it right. (For the record, I have no intention of picking up any HP3D flicks, but more power to those who do.)
Why Do Americans Have Yards? « Gambler’s House – I enjoy having a yard, to at least some degree — I could probably live easily with one half the size we have, but I do enjoy growing green things and adding some sparks of color to the neighborhood.
Virginia textbook claims blacks fought for Confederacy – Education – Salon.com – “Writers: Verify, verify, verify. Then verify some more. The Internet is not the ultimate source of human knowledge. Parents: Read through your kid’s textbooks and give them the old smell test. If something seems to stink, follow it like a bloodhound back to its source. And if it’s foul, raise hell.”
MEMO: Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election – There’s nothing wrong per se with people opposing governmental policies they feel hurt them, and pursuing that opposition through the ballot box. But it’s very worth-while for all of those “Hey, it’s us grass-roots Tea Party folk who are tired of Washington business as usual who are leading the charge against Obama and his crowd” crowd to consider whose deep pockets are helping fund all of this … and how … and why.
Chrome reaches second birthday, version 6 goes stable – I’ve been playing (again) with Chrome as my primary browser at home the past few weeks. Better and more stable performance than Firefox, but poorer tab handling and a more limited plugin ecosystem. Still pondering.
Not ready for primetime – Wow. And this is the chief executive of the state? (Notably, Brewer was required, by law, to participate in a single debate. I suspect she will duck any others.)
Brewer’s painfully long pauses – There’s having a brain fart, and then there’s … well, this ought to give Arizonan voters “pause.”
Rick Joyner Very Concerned that Obama Might Be a Treasonous Muslim – He’s a Muslim! Maybe! Except he acts like a Christian! Unless he’s lying! No, he’s definitely a Muslim! Probably! Except God told me he’s searching for Jesus! But until then he’s clearly a Muslim! Maybe! But if so, that would be really bad! (Jeez, do these folks ever listen to themselves and the crazytalk they engage in?)
Gingrich Wants Ground Zero Declared a National Battlefiled Memorial to Stop Park 51 – What makes Gingrich think that declaring Ground Zero a “National Battlefield” would affect the Park51 debate? Even if that magically made it possible to rule one way or the other about any new construction in the zone (yeah, that’s not a new bureaucratic nightmare for the entire WTC neighborhood), discriminating against the center would STILL fail any 1st Amendment test. And would it mean that the various strip clubs and OTB parlors in the area would somehow magically vanish, too?
Could We Still Put a Man on the Moon? : Mike the Mad Biologist – It’s not clear we could, for a variety of reasons. Certainly not without spending a lot of money — an amount that will continue to grow the more we shut down and mothball and discard and abandon what little space program we still have. “Maybe instead of worrying about Musselmen taking over the country and other ersatz notions of honor, the Tea Buggerers could worry about losing technological know-how. But that would cost money. Which is totally Hitler.”
Leaked German Military Report on Peak Oil [Casaubon’s Book] – Unfortunately, too many people are interested in short-term convenience and comfort, and short-term profit, to proactively change the huge role that petroleum plays in our economy.
Robin D. Laws – Protecting Your Hero – That’s a very interesting distinction (iconic vs. dramatic heroes), both literary and from a gaming perspective. And there are times when I’ve enjoyed both, but as Doyce notes, having conflicting expectations between Player and GM as to what a particular game is going to be like is a great recipe for frustration, at the very least.
Sentences to ponder – Yes and no. There can be big difference between various individual candidates within parties, esp. in executive, vs. legislative races. Even there, are Dennis Kucinich and Ben Nelson really indistinguishable? On the other hand, people tend to vote on party lines (at least by default), and personalized differences can serve to swing folks one way or another (or to donate more or less to the cause).
Gabrielle Bell’s comic strip about ComicCon – Boing Boing – An interesting collection, but … well, one commenter put it best. “Comicons are like Star Trek conventions – they’re about the core values. Core values like comic books that are for kids, not those artsy fartsy 20-something angst-ridden disenfranchised white kids with ennui.” Bell makes it sound like the Worst Possible Experience in the World, even when she’s invited to attend and given a freaking per diem.
Keep Calm and Carry On – I actually have a copy of this poster up in my office. It’s a good reminder that, no matter the business brouhaha, flying into a tizzy isn’t productive.
BBC News – Last US combat brigade quits Iraq – A noteworthy milestone — though the many remaining US troops will still be in harm’s way, even if their mission is not explicitly for combat.
YouTube – Is Sarah Palin gunning for 2012? – This is certainly unfair, uncivil, inflammatory, mocking, and disrespectful. However it is just too funny (and creepy) not to share.
Google chief warns of Internet imperiling privacy – The question becomes whether this sort of universal public square will suppress behavior, reimpose more keeping of behavior private, or change what becomes (eventually) acceptable. In either case, I expect a decade or so for society to adjust.
Under fire, SBI blood analyst suspended – Agents’ Secrets – NewsObserver.com – “The criminal convictions or sentences of three people who have since been executed in North Carolina, and four more cases in which the defendants are now on death row, are may be in doubt because of flawed reports.” The more I know about the criminal justice system — and the human failures of judgment, objectivity, or even love of truth, that riddle it — the more convinced I am that capital punishment is inexcusable. Not because the state cannot have a compelling reason to put some individuals to death, but because the state cannot convincingly assert that its evidence for doing so is correct “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Tough folks to please – “I feel ridiculous defending Graham from other Republicans, but the larger significance of this is important: the GOP base wants to create an environment in which Republican lawmakers should be afraid to even TALK to Democrats.”
Apple Launches Cloud Music Service in Uncharacteristic Fashion – Interesting. I suspect the labels will have a point here, but the idea of hosting my own music store on the cloud rather than on a single (well-backed-up) hard drive at my home is … attractive.
Bike agenda spins cities toward U.N. control, Maes warns – The Denver Post – Wow. Lunatic Fringe ‘R’ Us! I mean, really … the only objection raised here is that it’s a suggestion made by a group within (GASP!) the UN. Which obviously means it’s part of a world-wide socialist anti-American cabal out to pollute our precious bodily fluids! Yeesh.
New Start: the worst GOP obstruction yet | Michael Tomasky – “A semi-serious legislator, the kind trying to do the job he’s paid by taxpayers to do, would get in there and negotiate and get more money for upkeep or Star Wars or whatever, bearing in mind that US-Russia relations on a matter as grave as this should not be held hostage to electoral politics. Believe it or not, that’s how things actually used to work in this country. Not any more. And one party is far, far more to blame than the other. Disgraceful.”
“Freedom:” The Right of Religious Fundamentalists to Discriminate Against Everyone Else | RHRealityCheck.org – “People are allowed to believe whatever bigoted things they want about their fellow human beings. What they aren’t allowed to do is act in bigoted ways contrary to their profession and expect to keep their jobs, a much different thing.” Someone whose conscience does not allow them to serve all members of the public equally should find another line of work, not demand that society allow them to discriminate against their clientele.
It’s been a while since I pointed out how Bryan Fischer is a dolt. I think I need to correct that.
Ah, let’s start off with Al Gore, who has the burden of being That Clinton Guy’s VP, The Guy Who Ran Against Dubya, and That Global Warming Dude. Al Gore is a favorite target of the Right, and, in the grand tradition of shooting at the messenger when the message is bothersome.
