A big shakeup in the DOMA defense – Law firms are certainly within their rights to decide whether or not to take certain cases, or even to change their minds after a time. This is not a “To Kill a Mockingbird” attempt to save an innocent whom everyone else has abandoned. This is defense of a political policy, which may appeal on principle — but, then, it’s not being done out of a noble sense of “defending an unpopular position,” either.
Even for Fox, a cheap attack – Stay classy (or at least truth-loving), Fox News! You really do justify that whole “Faux News” label sometimes.
Define ‘peacetime’ – I see Mitt is going to run on the “reality-challenged” ticket.
Bible-Quoting Billboards for the Atheist Crowd – Actually, I think it would be worthwhile to have these sorts of billboards up. It might actually engender some conversation about what folks accept or reject from the Bible, why, and how that might apply to other subjects.
All Trump Everything – “Mounting a presidential campaign has always been a great way get pet issues into the media spotlight. That works especially well when your pet issue is yourself being in the media spolight.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Beck Calls Huck “Progressive,” Huck Calls Beck An Idiot – See, it’s moments like these when I say, “Hey, Huckabee is actually a pretty rational, all-right king of guy.” Then he turns around and pals up with (also-Beck-friend) David Barton.
Have a happy Zombie Weekend – Heh. Yeah, I noticed that passage whilst doing the Passion reading on Palm Sunday. That particular aspect of the Crucifixion doesn’t usually make it into the movies.
Why Are Tech Founders Such Assholes? [Startups] – “What is it about computers and money that instills villainy?” Computers have nothing to do with it. Power (and money) corrupt … and, really, the folks most likely to strive to achieve either are most likely to be corrupted by them (or by their pursuit). I mean, really, is Gates any worse than Carnegie, or Zuckerberg than Rockefeller?
Wonkette Thinks It’s Okay To Mock Trig Palin. Bulletin: It’s Not – Making an ass of yourself in the name of snark knows no political boundaries, unfortunately. This kind of humor (even its marginally weaker form that Wonkette is so infamous for) is one reason why I don’t read her.
I would never participate in interfaith dialogue with a Muslim.
That’s not at all surprising, Bryan, after all the things you’ve said about them.
You have all these Christians out there, these pastors, wonderful interfaith dialogue.
It’s good to hear that there are Christians out there not like you, Bryan — people willing to reaching out to others to share, be kind, understand.
Jesus didn’t just hang out with nice, faithful, orthodox Jews, y’know.
You have pastors allowing Muslims to come in and hold their worship services in their church buildings, which in my mind is just compromising those places spiritually. So there is no way that Christians ought to open their sanctuaries to those that are serving Allah. Allah is a demon God. He’s not the true god. You’re inviting all of the spirits that are associated with Islam, that further Islam, that promote Islam, you are inviting them into your building and compromising your building spiritually in doing that.
Holy Moley! It’s true! It’s Allah Cooties!
But … but wait a sec, Bryan. Isn’t God — the Christian God you worship — isn’t He all-powerful? Isn’t He the only True God? How could a place dedicated to Him, protected by Him, raised in His name, be spiritually sullied by the followers of some monkey moon demon, or however you’re characterizing Islam this week? That actually makes it sound like Allah might be more powerful than Jehovah, Brian, in some cases. In fact, it sounds positively Manichean. Which, of course, would be heretical.
Besides, the true church is where the worshipers gather. Jesus himself taught, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. Nothing that evil, nasty Allah can do about that, right, Bryan?
Of course, the biggest danger of interfaith dialog and Christians reaching out to Muslims and others is that people might actually find common ground. Might find a way to make each others’ lives better. Might find a way to bring the Kingdom of Heaven a little closer. Why, everyone concerned might begin to actually see each other as human.
We certainly can’t have that.
Of course, there’s another preacher who talked kindly about those adherents of enemy religions. Even tried to convince his audience to think of them as their neighbors. Fortunately, some strong, upstanding, protectors of orthodoxy — just like you, Bryan — put him in his place.
On the other hand, Bryan, I can see where you’re coming from. After all, when the only time you ever entered a mosque, you prayed that your spiritual forces would destroy it — well, I understand where you might project that same hatefulness onto Muslims coming into a Christian church.
Some might wonder why I spend so much time on a dolt like Bryan Fischer. Were he just a no-name idjit spreading his loathesome hate in obscurity, no, it wouldn’t be worth the bother.
But he’s not. This is a guy with columns and radio shows put on by a major conservative organization. who gets invited to speak at major conservative shindigs. This is a guy who’s been visited, on that very radio show where he puts out the fatuous bile like that above, by Republican presidential hopefuls like Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Rep. Michele Bachmann, and Haley Barbour. Other guests have included Sen. Jim Inhofe, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Lamar Smith, and various other GOP congresscritters.
They take him, and his influence, seriously enough to associated with him. That says something about them, and about him, too.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Victim of Prosecutorial Misconduct Speaks : Dispatches from the Culture Wars – The inability to trust in the law and the justice systems means that the population will feel no need or duty to align with them. Dishonest prosecutors not only harm (or even kill) the innocent, they attack the bedrock of our nation and society.
A Tax Day Special—The U.S. is a low-tax country – But … but … we’ve been assured by the GOP that we’re paying humongously high taxes and that no civilization could possibly endure with our horrific tax burden, especially on the rich!
Ayn Rand vs Jesus Christ – That’s pretty much correct. And, yet, Rand seems to give so many on the Right, many of them ostensibly conservative Christians, giggles of glee.
Bryan Fischer, sir, you are the gift that keeps giving for providing the fodder for blog posts. On your radio show Friday, you segued from a discussion about a scripture passage on marriage in heaven, to a discussion of (a) why gays can never be married, and then to (b) Mormon teachings on marriage in heaven are different from yours, so we should grill Mitt Romney about what sort of whacky Mormon things he believes in.
Let’s take those points in turn, shall we, Bryan?
The purpose of marriage, ultimately, is children. That’s it. Now there are other purposes: it’s there for pleasure; it’s there for companionship, and all of those are celebrated in the Scriptures. But the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage is the procreation of children.
Oddly enough, the passage you were preaching from doesn’t mention this as the purpose for marriage, or even as a purpose, though it’s all about marriage and what marriage will be like in heaven. If kids are the purpose of marriage, you’d think Jesus would have noted that there will no kids born in heaven, so no need for marriage. Instead, we get stuff about giving and taking in marriage and which of a widow’s seven widowers will be her husband in heaven (trick answer: none of them!).
There are some bits at the beginning about Mosaic law dictating that a brother must marry his brother’s widow so as to “raise offspring for his brother.” Do you think that should happen today, too, Bryan?
Nor does the very first passage in the Bible about the purpose of there being both man and woman created (Gen. 2:18-24) ever mention children. It just says that “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And, at the end, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” That’s all about marriage — but there’s no mention of children at all, Bryan! What’s going on?
And God has designed that relationship – one man, one woman – that’s why we can never call homosexual relationships “marriages” because procreation is impossible. It is a biological impossibility with them. When you have a married couple that wants to conceive and can’t, that’s a tragedy. Homosexual couples – conception is an impossibility, biologically. And that’s why we never should dignify those relationships with the term “marriage” …
Can we let them marry and just call it “a tragedy,” Bryan? I mean, you haven’t really addressed the case of infertile couples, but we still let them marry, even where “procreation is possible.”
How about couples who don’t intend to have children at all, Bryan? Should we “dignify their relationships” with the term “marriage”?
[We were] talking in the first segment about Jesus’ teach and the resurrection and about marriage. This is interesting, by the way – remember, Mitt Romney is fully intending to run for the presidency in 2012. I read an article this morning – well, I just kind of scanned it …
Nice research on which to base an attack on another person, Bryan!
… – talking about the fact that his Mormon theology could be a serious problem for him in 2012 and I believe frankly that his Mormon theology ought to be an issue in 2012. I mean, we’re talking about the most powerful person in the world.
Religious convictions are out most deeply held convictions. These are the deepest part of us; things we believe to be true about God and God’s truth and God’s will. And Mitt Romney believes that there will be marriages in Heaven, that you will populate your own planet and will be siring children for all of eternity. This is flatly contradictory to what Jesus teaches. He says quite directly “in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” I mean you can’t get any more direct than that – they neither marry nor are given in marriage. And yet the LDS church teaches that people will be married for all of eternity.
Because they have an extended scripture that says some things beyond just the Old and New Testaments, Bryan. Remarkably enough, that means there are differences between what you believe, theologically, and what the Mormon Church believes. That would explain the “flat contradictions” and all the “and yet” moments.
I know — it’s shocking that anyone would believe something other than your understanding of the Bible, Bryan. Deal with it.
So a direct contradiction between Mormon theology and the teaching of Jesus Christ himself …
As recorded in the scripture you attribute to Jesus Christ, Bryan.
… and so I think it’s appropriate for Mr. Romney to be asked about the various distinctions of LDS theology, does he believe them.
And if he does?
There’s no Christian that has to be embarrassed about publicly embracing any of the fundamental elements. You take the Apostle’s Creed, the great creeds of the church and you ask any Christian candidate for public office “do you believe in the Trinity?”A Christian has no hesitation to saying “yes.” Do you believe in the inspiration of the Scripture? Absolutely. Do you believe in the sinless life of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the resurrection of Christ? Absolutely. Do you believe in the universal church? Absolutely. Do you believe in the second coming of Christ? Absolutely.
Actually, Bryan, you could probably find some folks embarrassed about some of the “fundamental elements” of Christianity, depending on how you define them. I mean, the Trinity? Even priests hate having to talk about that concept during Trinity Sunday because it’s a tough one to actually understand, let alone explain.
No Christian needs to have any hesitation about publicly embracing the fundamentals of Christian theology and I think it’s important to ask Mr. Romney, does he embrace the fundamentals of LDS theology and let the American people decide whether they want somebody with those convictions sitting in the Oval Office.
That’s fine, Bryan, just fine, just one, teeny, tiny, minor, trivial question:
Who cares?
Tell me how it will make someone a better President if they believe in the Trinity. Explain to me how a faith in the “catholic and apostolic church” does (or doesn’t) improve the ability to defend the nation, grow our economy, take care of our people, win the space race, boost employment, or any of the various other things we ask a President to do. Does believing in the inspiration of Scripture make you a better world leader (assuming we can all agree on what it means that Scripture was “inspired” — are we talking about literal and inerrant truth of Scripture, or something more nuanced?)? Tell me how they check off the box on Faith vs Works, or the Virgin Birth, or the Intercession of Saints, makes a difference in the Oval Office.
If Mitt wears Mormon underwear, or thinks Joseph Smith found some gold tablets at the behest of an angel, or that we get married a zillion times in heaven, or that the American Indians are the lost tribes of Israel, … is pretty meaningless to me as to his presidential aspirations (unless it impacts his treatment of American Indians, I suppose).
What are his policies? How does he lead his life? Does he believe in justice, and mercy, and treating others well, and defending the weak, and protecting the nation? How does he treat the help? How does his faith (if any) inform his day-to-day or larger policy directions — and what are those?
I am much more concerned about those things than about which lines of the Nicene Creed a given candidate agrees with wholeheartedly, agrees with as metaphor, or thinks are kind of goofy. If his or her faith is an issue to me, it’s in (a) how does it drive his what he’s going to do, and (b) does he seem particularly reality-impaired because of it (whether it’s Bad Mormon Archaeology with the whole Lost Tribes thing, or Bad Creation Literalism with some sort of Young Earth beliefs).
(I realize some of my atheist friends might consider any religious faith reality-impairing, but I’m considering here beliefs that potentially have a direct impact on public policy, or that demonstrate a willingness do ignore substantial bodies of evidence in favor of a their religious mythos.)
Oh, and I’ll throw in (c) does he practice what he preaches, or is his faith worn on his sleeve to win votes, and then discarded once in power to the benefit of himself and his supporters? Is he honest, or not?
Those are the questions I’d rather people ask Mitt, or Newt, or Michelle, or Roy, or (of course) Barrack. Not which academic points of theology they concur with. And, I strongly suspect, that’s how most Americans feel, too. Yeah, they may get a bit hinky over some of the odder (through lack of exposure) Mormon theological and cosmological tenets, but just as with John Kennedy’s run as a Catholic (which also raised some “he believes weird stuff!” hackles), I think most Americans are more interested in performance than theory, and in fundamental behavior and principles behind it rather than esoteric creedal box-checking.
Maybe that’s why you feel you have to convince folks otherwise, Bryan. Because otherwise, how can you make sure only the right side of the Us vs Them conflict in your world will get candidates elected?
I am willing to believe that Newt Gingrich really is a pretty intelligent fellow. I disagree with his political philosophy, not to mention his personal ethics, but all told he strikes me as a man with a certain measure of smarts.
Which is why, when he says something like this, it isn’t just a Michelle Bachmann moment. Newt is smart enough to know this for the idiocy that it is.
“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”
How can a “secular atheist country” also be a country “dominated by radical Islamists”?
The rhetorical bankruptcy of the Right is such that they’re just stringing buzz words together, regardless of whether they make any sense. To the base (taught well and hard by the Right’s leadership, yet seemingly out of their control), “secular” = “atheist” … but somehow both are also = “radical Islamist.”
Never mind that atheists disdain Islam as much as Christianity — or that Islamist regimes persecute atheists (as well as secularists) as much as any other group, if not more. Never mind that one can be a secularist (pressing for a government that is not dominated by religious factions) without being an atheist.
No, all that’s important is stringing together a bunch of dog whistle words so as to either whip up the base into a voting frenzy (“Secularists! Islamists! Atheists! Radicals!”) or else establish bona fides with the folks most likely to vote in a primary or turn out for a caucus.
From someone whose only claim to fame is stridency — a Bachmann or a Palin — I might expect it. From someone who actually claims to be (and has some credit for being) someone with an IQ out of double-digits, it’s disappointing, disgusting, and alarming.
Actually, he’s not a dolt. He’s a pretty smart guy. He just lets his ambitions and political instincts lead him to doltish positions so as to pander to whichever set of voters he’s out to try to suck into his inevitable presidential bid.
I mean, with a title like that, you’d think that the Obama administration is cutting taxpayer funded arms deals to Israel, or shelling its coast line, or entering a mutual defense pact with Hezbollah, or sending money to support Iran’s nuclear program.
What’s Obama done that’s such a harsh and utter rejection of Israel?
The Obama administration has been seeking a way to avoid vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It has floated the idea of meeting Israel’s critics halfway with a U.N. “presidential statement” calling Israeli settlements “illegitimate.”
Mitt Romney with Benjamin Netanyahu
Yes, Obama has had the nerve, the gall, the short-sighted appalling lack of judgment signal the least amount of official displeasure possible at Israel’s ongoing settlement program on the West Bank. Never mind that nearly every single observer considers Israel’s slow-motion invasion of what’s been previously promised as land for a Palestinian state (especially to the east of Jerusalem) to be the biggest provocation by Israel and the greatest barrier to any negotiations, let alone lasting peace. The fact that Obama’s not out there with a shovel breaking ground on the next settlement is, to Romney (or to the audience he’s writing to) the greatest sin imaginable.
Whether or not such a statement is actually issued, the very idea is a mistake. Indeed, we have here in this single idea a display of multiple foreign-policy failures of this presidency. Let us count the ways the administration’s proposed action has already injured Israel and the United States.
For one thing, the U.N. condemnation put forward by the president puts Israel, our closest ally in the region, in an untenable position.
Israel is already in an untenable position. It cannot survive without US aid. It faces population pressures from the Palestinian and from its own internal Arab population The states around it are, at best, unfriendly neutrals and, at worst, sworn enemies (leaving aside that Israel makes a great whipping boy for many of those regimes). It also faces continued and growing condemnation for its actions towards the Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza — actions that deserve condemnation (even if they are by no means unprovoked).
Snapshot of Palestinian territories in 2007, including areas carved off by Israel, walled off, and, of course the settlements. "Radical border concessions," Mitt?
In the face of this, Israel has been more than willing to wink and smile and then slap the US in the face through its actions around Middle East peace talks.
In exchange for peace, previous Israeli governments offered radical border concessions, surrendering most of the West Bank and even portions of Jerusalem. In 2005, the government of Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip, uprooting thousands of its own citizens. Yet all such proposals and steps toward peace have been met by Palestinian rejection, by intifadas, by suicide bombings, and by Qassam rocket fire.
Those previous Israeli governments have also rejected radical concessions from the Palestinians, built security barriers and locked down border crossings regardless of personal or economic impact on the Palestinians, responded to rocket fire with massively deadly shellings, committed war crimes, broken promises … and, steadily, unrepentantly, and intentionally allowed and encouraged its most radical religious patriots to invade, one settlement at a time, territory it had otherwise promised or conceded to the Palestinians, or at least had pledged to negotiate over.
Many of these actions have had, as I said, provocations (we’ll leave aside the whole cycle of violence tragedy in Israeli history). The Palestinian leadership and radicals are hardly white hats in this arena. But Israel has leveraged its greater wealth and defense technology (mostly courtesy of the US) to respond far more forcefully and brutally than anything the Palestinians have done. In some actions, they may not have had an easy or winnable choice, but in the matter of settlements, there is nothing save internal political pressure to explain their actions.
And Romney is not a blind enough dolt to actually not know that.
Isolated more than ever in the region, Israel must now contend with the fact that its principal backer in the world, the United States, is seeking to ingratiate itself with Arab opinion at its expense.
As opposed to ingratiating itself with Israeli opinion at its expense.
Will an increasingly tenuous relationship with the U.S., at the very moment when it is becoming more vulnerable, encourage Israel to be as flexible as it has in the past, or the reverse? The answer is clear.
Yeah, the Obama Administration just keeps turning its back on Israel's survival
Israeli flexibility has never shown any discernible pattern based on US actions — largely because US policy since Israel’s founding — regardless of who’s in the White House, has been reflexive support for anything Israel does, and vetoes of any criticism of its actions in the UN. Oh, and still more military aid.
For another thing, even on its own terms of supposedly promoting the Arab-Israeli peace process, this is not a step forward but a step back. By taking up and embracing a core Palestinian demand, as the president has done repeatedly on this issue over the past two years, the United States is removing incentives for the Palestinians to parley with Israel at all. They are induced to believe that they can simply wait until their demands are handed to them on a silver platter by Washington. The administration’s contemplated compromise in the U.N. thus would punish Israel and reward Palestinian intransigence.
Israel has, at times, slowed settlement growth, in particular areas, but has never, despite repeated pledges, ever frozen if or cut it back significantly. And this is hardly a new or whimsical demand by the Palestinians — they have pressed for it for decades, and Israel has alternated between shrugs of indifference and promises to do something about it Real Soon Now. And the US has sat by and clucked with shallow disapproval, at worse (American policy has always officially been to disapprove of these settlements; the Obama administration is the first to take that disapproval and pay a slight bit more lip service to it).
Suggesting that is removing Palestinian incentives to parley is like suggesting the US recognition of Israel’s right to exist is removing Israel’s incentives to parley.
The harm wrought by the Obama administration’s diplomatic decisionmaking is doubly driven home by the fact that it is taking place in that chamber of double-standards, the United Nations. For decades the U.N. has been the epicenter of the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel, a campaign that has often devolved into naked anti-Semitism. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have long resisted this vicious business. It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who in 1975 denounced the U.N.’s “Zionism Equals Racism” resolution as an obscenity, and it was Pres. George H. W. Bush who in 1991 won its repeal. The Obama administration is abysmally remiss in departing from our proud tradition of standing by a democratic ally when the world’s most unsavory regimes gang up on it.
You got me here, Mitt - the UN's about as blindly anti-Israel as you'd like the US to be blindly pro-Israel.
There is certainly anti-Israeli sentiment in the UN, some of it anti-Semitic in nature, some of a byblow of anti-American sentiment, some of it a matter of other regional and geo-politics, and some of it a result of Israel’s own actions.
Is there rightfully, though, any circumstance in which Romney thinks it would be appropriate to criticize Israel in the UN? If so, then argue this on the merits, not on the venue. If not, then it’s Romney that’s adding to the problem of the UN being “the chamber of double-standards.”
Finally, the episode reveals a strategic failure that transcends mishandling of the Israeli-Palestinian problem alone. For its first two years, the Obama administration downplayed the importance of promoting democracy around the world. Reflexively shunning the foreign-policy approach of its predecessor, it sought to engage adversaries like Iran and North Korea, coddle autocratic allies, and distance itself from democratic friends.
Because, of course, “promoting democracy” in Iraq and Afghanistan were such signal successes of the Bush Administration, and Bush clearly did so much to engage with and strengthen our relationships with all our democratic friends in, say, Europe. And certainly Bush (along with every other president) has never coddled “autocratic allies” (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan …), and dealt decisively and effectively in eliminating the threat of Iran and North Korea.
True, over the last few days the administration has belatedly recognized that, in the wake of the revolutions sweeping the Arab world, supporting aspirations for human freedom might be important.
He looks so ... presidential!
Unlike so many on the Right who considered those revolutions to be the start of a new caliphate movement and a triumph of radicals against long-term allies. Did we hear Romney condemning that particular branch of his own party?
It has finally, for example, issued strong statements condemning the Iranian ayatollahs for their violent suppression of the democratic opposition.
The low opinion of the Obama administration toward the Iranian government’s “suppression of democratic opposition” has always been clear. On the other hand, for a variety of reasons (not least of which the actions of his own predecessor), Obama has needed to tread carefully to make sure that American support of the democracy movement in Iran doesn’t actually injure its support within the country or give the “ayatollahs” an excuse to crack down further. Believe it or not, some folks consider the United States as something a bit less than the arbiter of morality and international goodness.
But one step forward, two steps backward. President Obama’s decision to lean hard on Israel has the U.S. once again currying favor with dictators and distancing itself from democrats.
Romney at the Herzliya Conference, 2007
I ask again, Mitt, is there ever a circumstance, or anything that Israel could do, that would warrant “leaning hard” on Israel (as if a UN resolution is “leaning hard” on a country)? If not, then what’s the point of favoring democrats vs dictators?
Putting forward a misbegotten U.N. statement as a compromise was a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake.
I think you’ve hardly proven any of those adjectives, Mitt (in fact, aside from posturing, haven’t even established a case for them).
The administration may conceive of its action as a low cost, split-the-difference gesture, …
We some times call that “compromise,” Mitt. It’s unheard of amongst the GOP these days, I understand, but it has a lot of value to it.
… but it has harmed an ally, …
Since when has a UN resolution (or statement) ever harmed (or deterred, or shamed) Israel?
… sent a dangerous signal of inconstancy to allies and adversaries alike, …
One of the dangers of democracy, Mitt, is that you end up with a different president every now and then. That means inconsistency. And, frankly, I welcome the disconnect in the tone and manner of this president’s foreign policy vs. the previous one.
… and betrayed basic American principles.
My Middle-Eastern Ally, Right or Wrong!
In some unestablished but very scary-sounding fashion. Which principles were those again, Mitt?
That’s three mistakes in one. I hope in the end the U.S. vetoes the anti-Israel resolution, but significant damage has already been done.
Only if your position is that Israel can do no wrong, the United States must always support it no matter what, and any straying from those positions is a significantly damaging mistake that betrays “basic American principles.”
There’s a lot to like and admire about Israel, and I support its continued existence and flourishing. But that doesn’t mean Israel doesn’t make mistakes, or even intentionally pursue (for decades) policies that are destructive and immoral. Mitt — who, again, is a lot smarter than he sounds — comes off with that 4-year-old unwavering loyalty for a parent that one usually only sees with the “America, Love It or Leave It” crowd, only in this case it’s directed toward unquestioning loyalty toward Israel … and is clearly an effort to garner electoral support from folks who think Middle Eastern politics are exactly that black and white.
Cella Energy claims breakthrough that would result in $1.50 per gallon gasoline alternative. – “If this is real you can expect the Oil Industry to have an absolute shit fit over it. I’d like to be optimistic about it, but the cynic in me can’t help but think that even if it does work as well as claimed that there’ll be some wicked trade-off like it causes cancer in everything that comes in contact with it or something else equally horrible.” Or at least that’s what some with a vested interest in the status quo will CLAIM … [/conspiracymode]
A note to the Teapartiers… – But … but … if they had guns, they’d automatically have freedom! Plus, they’re Muslims! You can’t trust them with guns!
Again with ‘exceptionalism’? – I’d like to think that “exceptional” is meant as “unique” or “unanticipated” or somehow particularly wonderful. But “exceptional” also seems a lazy way of excusing our behavior: nobody should be allowed to torture prisoners “except” the US (because we’re “exceptional”); nobody should overthrow governments “except” the US (because we’re “exceptional”), etc. That this word has become a ginned-up synonym for “patriotic” is all the more lousy.
The serious flaws in the GOP’s anti-abortion bill – Not only does it block Medicaid funding for abortions when rapes aren’t “forcible” enough, it effectively does the same for private insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But remember, the GOP is steadfastly against imposing the government’s tyrannical health insurance rules on private individuals!
Frank Rich: The Tea Party wags the dog – The GOP establishment is potentially in a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, that has consequences for the nation as a whole, too.
GOP Priorities: Redefining Rape – While abortion is an option I’ll never be happy about, this, right here, is precisely why I will never make that decision for someone else, for the person, individual, citizen, woman, who is ultimately having to make that choice. That there are those who are so enamored of the abstract that they would deign to decide who “qualifies,” whose rape was “forcible” enough to “merit” coverage of abortion services, is itself sickening enough.
I Me Mine: The Unholy Trinity Of Ayn Rand « Tomfoolery – Rand appeals to the high school / college period of self-discovery by saying, “You are the only person in the world who matters. Pursue your own self-interest because that is the highest good.” Most people grow out of that, fortunately. Randians never seem to. And way too many of them are now in the halls of our government.
Building a Better Word Cloud – An interesting analysis (esp. if you compare the most frequent words and compare them to the person usually considered more “aloof” and “analyitical” and out of touch, vs. the person who it’s often claimed is “one of us”).
HOWTO make health-care cheaper by spending more on patients who need it – ” In other words, providing excellent, personalized care to the small number of patients who don’t fit the system’s model saves far more money than making the system more stringent, with more paperwork, higher co-pays and other punitive measures. It’s a win-win.” The problem with systems is that they are rarely dynamic enough to deal with those outside the system. And they usually do everything they can to defend themselves from change.
Neil Barofsky: Credit ratings for banks now include assurance of government bailouts – Imagine the brouhaha if social activists were stating that any individual should feel free to take whatever risk they want because the government would always bail them out with a security net. But, then, the banks are “too big to fail,” and too many individuals are “too small to matter.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Their Own Private Europe – NYTimes.com – The GOP hereby formally requests that “facts” not be allowed to interfere with their “talking points.” Thank you.
Tussling Over Jesus – NYTimes.com – “To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.” I know which one resembles most the Jesus I read about in the Bible.
What Is The LEAST Dangerous, Cutest Thing We Can Outlaw Next? – “How about those scary animals that have clipboards and dream up worst case scenarios for every aspect of childhood? Let’s ban THOSE! But no, first we must worry more about The Children.” Crikey.
Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More | TorrentFreak – It’s hardly censorship, but … well, it’s an odd thing for them to do — completely ineffective, even trivial, yet an intentional step. Is it a (poorly considered, but intentionally harmless) sop to Big Media, or the start of something less savory from Google in this area?
Sarah weighs in on … um … something incoherent, in chatting about the State of the Union on Fox with Greta Van Susteren:
GRETA: Governor, last night there was a lot of discussion about the Sputnik Moment the President wants us to have. Do you agree with him? Is this our moment?
PALIN: That was another one of those WTF moments, when he has so often repeated, the Sputnik Moment, that he would aspire Americans to celebrate, he needs to remember that what happened back then with the former communist USSR and their victory and that race to space, yeah, they won, but they also incured so much debt at the time that it resulted in the inevitable collapse of the Soviet Union so I listen to that Sputnik Moment talk over and over again and I think, no we don’t need one of those.
Does the woman have any idea what she’s actually saying? Or talking about?
Does she know what Sputnik was?
Does she know what the US did in response to Sputnik?
Did she ever watch The Right Stuff?
Is she trying to say that the American space program (you know, one of those Big, Grand, Exciting, Flag-Waving, Patriotic Things that Americans once felt really good and proud about) was a mistake because it … well, because the Soviet space program bankrupted the USSR?
Does she actually believe the their space program was what bankrupted the Soviet Union?
Does the Divine Ms. Half-Term Governor actually know what “WTF” means, even?
One wonders.
Remember, this is the woman who wanted to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency … and who lots of people seem to want to be our next President. Crikey.
I mean, where do I start? The less-than-successful singing-along to the audio recording? That it’s being sung in a church (or someplace set up for a church service)? Just the insanity which is the lyrics (and the message thereof)? Or that these people seem to truly believe it with the same unquenchable faith that they bring to their adherence to God?
My friends, I give you “The Battle Hymn of Sarah Palin.”
Okay, time to start drinking.
(Written and submitted to YouTube Tom Dempsey; vocals — the official ones, I assume — by Gary McVay.)
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.”
