Well, according to the latest national polls it looks like Mike Huckabee is now running neck and neck with Giuliani for the Republican nomination. This amiable and likeable guy - at least on the surface - is a complete wreck of a candidate. The only reason he is surging in the polls is due to the lemming-like nature of evangelical xians who only want to vote for another brain-dead xian. When Huckabee was asked what he attributed his surge to he said something so stupid that only a xian could like it:
“There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one,” Huckabee said. “It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people and that’s the only way that our campaign could be doing what it’s doing.
"And I’m not being facetious nor am I trying to be trite. There literally are thousands of people across who are praying that a little will become much and it has, and it defies all explanation. It has confounded the pundits, and I’m enjoying every minute of their trying to figure it out. And until they look at it from a just experience beyond human, they’ll never figure it out. And that’s probably just as well. That’s honestly why it’s happening.”
I think I even prefer Giuliani to this nonsense.
At the same time Mormon Mitt is trying to convert his raging Mormonism into a plus by touting his "faith." Well, you all know what I think of faith, but this whole speech is a crock of crap. If he were honest he would admit that he does NOT believe what most xian believers believe. But he won't do that... no, no... that would be too... gasp... honest.
Anyway, the whole field of Republicans is nothing but a fetid, stinking bouquet of turds.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Rupert Snags God Online
Did everyone hear that News Corp., that behemoth headed by Rupert Murdoch, has purchased Beliefnet.com, a faith portal whose mission "is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness". Well, I doubt they meant people specifically like "me"...
Anyway, the same guy that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal now owns an online site for jeebus believers. Not that I think this particular acquisition is all that significant, but does anyone else think that there should be limits on the number of "news" organizations that one company can own? (Like there used to be...)
Anyway, the same guy that owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal now owns an online site for jeebus believers. Not that I think this particular acquisition is all that significant, but does anyone else think that there should be limits on the number of "news" organizations that one company can own? (Like there used to be...)
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Ron Paul Strikes Back
Those of you who have read Mona Charen’s column attacking Ron Paul should take note that Jesse Benton, Communications Director for Ron Paul, has responded to the article in a very impressive, articulate, and convincing letter to the editor of the National Review.
I reproduce it for your edification here:
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.
2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.
3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.
4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.
I reproduce it for your edification here:
I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.
1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.
2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.
3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.
4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.
Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?
Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.
Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.
Monday, November 26, 2007
And I Thought the Press Had Wrapped Up This Presidential Election Already?
Things are wonderfully helter skelter right now in the world of presidential politics. Just about when all the journalists had all but conceded the Democratic primary race to Hillary Clinton, recent poll results don't look so good for her any more. It looks like she now trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups. But that could change in a flash -- just ask Hillary who this past Summer had polls showing she beat every Republican thrown at her.
Most polls still show Hillary ahead in Iowa, but Obama is inching up on her. In New Hampshire, though, Hillary is still ahead by a substantial margin in most polls. And it is the same story in the next primary, South Carolina, with Hillary comfortably ahead. Unless something significant happens (and it could) it looks like Hillary will win two, maybe three of these first contests.
Things are more interesting on the Republican side of the race, though. Romney and Giuliani are attacking each other, while the unfortunately-named Huckabee rises. And so, too, does Ron Paul who
Poll-wise, Romney leads by a lot in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with South Carolina somewhat of a mixed bag. If Romney can capture two of these I think it will be a big blow to the perception that Giuliani is the inevitable Republican nominee.
Oh, and among all this foo-fa-rah Trent Lott announces his upcoming resignation. Buh-bye, Trent!
Most polls still show Hillary ahead in Iowa, but Obama is inching up on her. In New Hampshire, though, Hillary is still ahead by a substantial margin in most polls. And it is the same story in the next primary, South Carolina, with Hillary comfortably ahead. Unless something significant happens (and it could) it looks like Hillary will win two, maybe three of these first contests.
Things are more interesting on the Republican side of the race, though. Romney and Giuliani are attacking each other, while the unfortunately-named Huckabee rises. And so, too, does Ron Paul who
Poll-wise, Romney leads by a lot in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with South Carolina somewhat of a mixed bag. If Romney can capture two of these I think it will be a big blow to the perception that Giuliani is the inevitable Republican nominee.
Oh, and among all this foo-fa-rah Trent Lott announces his upcoming resignation. Buh-bye, Trent!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Has the Senate Grown a Pair?
Well, well, well, looks like the Senate has finally taken a step to stand up to that self-appointed little dictator Bush. Senators have been taking turns standing sentry duty this week — just to prevent Bush from circumventing the confirmation process by immediately installing people in federal posts while the chamber is in recess.
I like it! A 22 second session, presided over by a single Democratic Senator, just for procedural measure to block Bush from just naming people to appointments that require approval. It is a damn shame it has to come to this, but at least they are starting to stand up to the little despot for a change!
I like it! A 22 second session, presided over by a single Democratic Senator, just for procedural measure to block Bush from just naming people to appointments that require approval. It is a damn shame it has to come to this, but at least they are starting to stand up to the little despot for a change!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
I Am Holier Than Thou! (Said One Republican to the Other)
Looks like those holier than thou Republican presidential candidates can’t keep their holy feet out of their holy mouths. Let’s see what this inauspicious crowd has been up to lately:
Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?
Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.
Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.
But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).
Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?
The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.
Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?
Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.
Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.
But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).
Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?
The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.
Monday, November 19, 2007
A Modest Proposal for Colorado
A proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would give legal rights to fertilized human eggs may be headed for the ballot next year, raising the prospect of a heated local debate over abortion at the same time that Democrats are gathering (t)here for their national convention.
So, this bill will give legal rights to a fertilized egg, huh? You know, I don't think this goes far enough. Why should only fertilized eggs be protected? Why shouldn't every human egg be given protection under the law because every egg is a potential human being?
That mean little girls should be encouraged to have sex as soon as they begin to menstruate. Otherwise they are just murdering all of those potential human beings every time they get their period.
And heck, why stop with eggs? I think semen should be protected under the law, too! That would make you a mass murderer every time you masturbate.
Now that is a notion that could win me support from the Catholics, isn't it?
So, this bill will give legal rights to a fertilized egg, huh? You know, I don't think this goes far enough. Why should only fertilized eggs be protected? Why shouldn't every human egg be given protection under the law because every egg is a potential human being?
That mean little girls should be encouraged to have sex as soon as they begin to menstruate. Otherwise they are just murdering all of those potential human beings every time they get their period.
And heck, why stop with eggs? I think semen should be protected under the law, too! That would make you a mass murderer every time you masturbate.
Now that is a notion that could win me support from the Catholics, isn't it?
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Christianity: World's Largest Case of Stockholm Syndrome
I ran across this interesting treatise calling organized religion, and Christianity in particular, the world's largest undiagnosed, and untreated, case of Stockholm Syndrome.
I had never thought of it that way, but the author makes an interesting case. If true, then it is reasonable to think of your religious friends as being in the control of a psychosis. Which kinda makes some of them easier to understand, doesn't it?
I had never thought of it that way, but the author makes an interesting case. If true, then it is reasonable to think of your religious friends as being in the control of a psychosis. Which kinda makes some of them easier to understand, doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
