Republicans

What he said:

And to finish:

Jim Downey

Nah, not me. That's the title of a new Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi.

Taibbi went 'undercover' to attend an Encounter Weekend at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in Texas. Hagee, you may recall, has been recently in the news for being batshitinsane, and oh yeah - for endorsing John McCain for president.

And Taibbi is not being metaphorical or ironic in his title. He is referring to the culmination of the Encounter Weekend, where:

Gotta love it. The folks over at Feministing get the usual kind of misogynist hate mail you would expect, but sometimes things turn out a little bit differently from what the sender intended:

Anti-feminist mailbag (the missing 5% edition)

We receive a lot of hate email here at Feministing, and this one was too good not to share.

Men are better than women look at the comparison in IQ men are scientifically proven to have a higher IQ by roughly 5 points, or 5% you cannot dispute science sorry and if you want a much better website than your shitty one you might want to go to [redacted]. I think you would gain a lot more knowledge from that website and you might learn about the truth that way you would not be so stupid and ignorant you stupid cunts.

Brilliant:

Man, it'd been awesome if the Pope had said, in that "Fuck, Josef Mengele is about to inject my eyeball" voice of his, "Shit, that really contradicts my image of a nation of bloated, reality show-watching materialists who don't give a rat fuck that their government tortures and murders, who would rather suck a horse's dick than actually help the poor, and who toast their TVs whenever they hear about the latest execution, but, hey, sure, George, we'll go with your description for the next coupla days."

Read the whole thing.

Bush & the Pope deserve one another.

Jim Downey

I've about had it with the phrase "Commander-in-Chief."
Every day, the political noise machines of all parties tell us who they think would be a better Commander-in-Chief.

I've got news for them: We're electing a President, not a C-in-C.

The title belongs to the office of president as a means to retain civilian control of the armed forces, not because he--or she--is supposed to lead those forces. Symbolically, yes, but not in many other ways. Congress, in fact, is tasked with their regulation. The President is just the Secretary of Defense's supervisor.

For this "President-as-war-leader" meme, we have to thank, as with many destructive political and social contructs of late, George W. Bush, who struts around playing dress-up in military-style uniforms at every opportunity. He's "The Commander Guy." He delights in the trappings of war and it's infecting public discourse when it should be causing disgust. Worship of the military is what the other guys do--the ones we raise armies to fight, remember? And worshipping generals is much worse than worshipping soldiers.

So, last night I was listening to NPR, and I heard a long piece they did on Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's religious references in his various speeches. Fine, fine, we all know Huck wants to put the Law of Heaven above the Law of Man, et cetera. Right?

Well, maybe, maybe not.

See, what NPR found out when they started asking people about Huckabee's use of those allusions was that most people just didn't get 'em.

Huh? We're an overwhelmingly religious nation, according to just about any poll or measure you can come up with. Something on the order of 80 - 85% of Americans self-identify as one variety of Christian or another. Yet here's an excerpt from the NPR report, where they have gone out onto the National Mall in Washington, D.C. and talked to people:

We started by recounting this story: In November, as Huckabee surged in the polls, a student at Liberty University asked him what was driving his startling success. Huckabee responded, "It's the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of 5,000 people."

Rather than stating this in the comments of the post, I think a response to Brent's opening paragraphs in his latest review of Vox Day's book warrant a full post.

Brent, unsurprisingly, I agree with you.

Kind of.

Sort of.

Mostly.

Here's what I agree with you about:

I have my own opinions, political views, and values. I have my own, personal, rational for being a person in whom god-belief is absent (an atheist). I recognize no "atheist leaders" or spokesmen, and I endorse no one who claims to speak for me, or insinuates that they speak for me in any way.

Here's where our opinions may part:

I have lately (within the last few years) come to believe that the entire social and political "atheist movement", as it nominally exists, is a big, fat exercise in futility. Atheists are not, in any way, shape, or form, a "group" in the same sense that Methodists, Shriners, or Republicans are a group. The atheists who organize activist marches, set agendas and identify themselves as part of this "atheist movement" group seem to be lying to themselves. There is no cohesive atheist political movement.

more below the fold

Today the family went on a local Sierra Club-guided hike to find out about the Native American history in our back yard. Some of the impetus for the hike is an upcoming public meeting concerning the toll road they want to run smack dab through this site and the state park surrounding it.

As you might expect participants ran the gamut of far-left eco types to the right-wing NIMBYs, which is fine by me. There are many reasons to oppose this road.

While the hard core eco folks can sometimes get on my nerves because of their essentially religious (i.e. non-thinking) views, it was an overheard comment by a right-winger that made me shake my head.

I'm a lifelong Republican and I can see that we're getting screwed right and left by Bush, but you know, I like his religious views.

WTF? Here's a case of someone who sees the damage being done by Bush and still supports him just because they believe in the same fairy tale.

Simply astonishing.

And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

Gen.JC Christian, patriot, is on the job for Mike Huckabee:

The Mike Huckabee Center for the Liberation and Housing of Spermatazoan-Americans Opens

January 20, 2008 is a day that will live forever in the hearts of Americans, for it is the day the Mile Huckabee Center for the Liberation and Housing of Spermatazoan-Americans opened it's doors for the first time in the Pini Region of Second Life, http://slurl.com/secondlife/Pini/91/19.

DENVER - Carrying a family Bible, a state representative-elect (Douglas Bruce) kicked a photographer who took a picture of him during a statehouse prayer — then was sworn into office.

***

When Rocky Mountain News photographer Javier Manzano took his photo during the traditional morning prayer, Bruce, who was standing, brought the sole of his shoe down hard on the photographer's bent knee.

Don't do that again," Bruce told him.

Later, Bruce refused to apologize.

"I think that's the most offensive thing I've seen a photographer do in 21 years," he said. "If people are going to cause a disruption during a public prayer, they should be called for it. He owes an apology to the House and the public."

Oy. Hey, Representative Bruce, you know that there is more than one part to the US Constitution's First Amendment, right? Just in case you've happened to forget, here's the full text:

Amendment I

An attorney friend sent me this juicy item:

ABA Asked to Examine Accreditation of Pat Robertson's Law School

On Friday, a Houston civil rights lawyer sent a complaint letter to the American Bar Association asking the group to examine the accreditation of Pat Robertson's Regent University School of Law after the school allegedly violated his client's free speech rights.

***

"As a Christian and as a Lutheran, Mr. Key has religious convictions that religious leaders be held to high standards and that it is permissible to criticize any wrongful behavior," the complaint letter states. "When Mr. Key refused to conform to Regent's religious and political views, he was suspended and ultimately removed from law school."

"What they're doing is they are creating a bunch of lawyers who don't believe in free speech," says Kallinen, who wants the ABA to revoke the law school's accreditation.

Mitt Romney appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert, and immediately Russert hammered him with the atheist/atheism question. Romney stumbled a bit, but managed not to wedge his foot too firmly in his mouth, I thought.

But what in the heck is this "common bond of humanity" he says that he shares with atheists? Is the Mittster a Humanist now? He's trying too hard. He seems to be trying to be all things to all people, and that's just a recipe for disaster.

Transcript below the fold...

Alicia Colon, writing an op-ed piece for the New York Daily Sun, is upset that in the city of New York, Christian nativity scenes are not given parity with other religious displays on public property.

I actually agree with her on this point. If this is indeed the case, then it is a wrongheaded and illegal move by the school board. The Constitution protects all faiths - even Christians - and non-faith. To say otherwise is simple ignorance.

[Alicia Colon] The tyranny of a small but vocal minority has completely warped this time of year into a season of litigation and constitutional confusion. Our own Department of Education, which bans Christian religious symbols in schools, needs to educate itself on exactly what the Constitution says about God and country.

Well, the Constitution doesn't say anything about God. It does say a lot about country though.

A City Council member, Tony Avella, has introduced a resolution granting parity to Christians so that crèches will be permitted alongside menorahs and the star and crescent in city schools. At present, the education department will not allow it, though there is no constitutional bar to this nativity display. At a press conference at City Hall this week, Mr. Avella and other community activists demanded equal justice, but the mere fact that this is an issue demonstrates how little is understood about the First Amendment, which does allow the "free exercise of religion."

First of all, there is no city resolution anywhere in America that can "grant" anyone a right that is already guaranteed by the Constitution. If Councilman Avella thinks that he has this kind of power, then he needs to re-think his place in the world. I mean, thanks a bunch for trying to help, Councilman, but there is no reason to act like a fool doing it.

I also have an issue with the way Miss Colon attempts to support her contention about the city excluding Christians. She tries to make the case that because the founders said "God" a lot, and because they wrote about God a lot, then Christians should be free to place their own religious displays alongside other religious displays on public property.

She also uses Newt Gingrich's achingly dominionist film "Rediscovering God in America" as an argument for her position.

The thing is that she doesn't need all that stuff. The Constitution, and the First Amendment already give Christians "parity" to use the public square.

The U.S. Constitution is the only legal founding document we have. Other documents have undeniable historical value, but they do not carry the force of law. There is no dispute - the Constitution is the basic foundation of the laws of our land. Everything that is America flows from the ideas and concepts embodied within it.

So, how many times do you think "God" mentioned in the Constitution? How about "Jesus" or "Christ"? What about "Creator", "Supreme Being", "Thor", "Big Magic Ju-Ju Guy", or "Santa Claus"?

If you said "zero", you are exactly right. The Constitution is a wholly secular document by design. Our Founding Fathers were wise men to craft it as such.

The First Amendment guarantees us our freedom of expression, religion, and press. Inherent in that freedom is the freedom to not believe. That is what us atheists call "freedom from religion", and apparently what Miss Colon is objecting to in the headline of her column.

The very best course our government can take in this is strict neutrality. This is what the First Amendment means. That way, individuals may practice or not practice, believe or not believe, with our government staying strictly neutral - neither hindering nor helping. This concept has been borne out by more than 200 years of wildly successful religions and religious growth in our country, and lately in the rise of atheist, agnostic, and other secular people's voices, organizations, blogs, writings, and political awareness. We have the freedom to be religious - whatever we want to be - or not religious. There is no other country like this on the planet, with this type of unbridled religious freedom. And it is due to the secular, neutral stance that our government (should) take - the secular, neutral stance spelled out in the First Amendment to our Constitution.

The obvious example - especially at this time of the year - of what this means in practical terms is that you cannot allow a Christian Nativity scene on public property without also allowing everyone else the same privilege.

The problem here is that in most cases like this, the Christian majority wants to be "more equal" than the rest of us. They have enjoyed special preference by virtue of being the majority for so long, that they now consider it their right.

In some isolated cases like the one above in New York, the pendulum swings too far in the other direction. This is also wrong.

Alicia, you don't need a lot of god-talk to make your point. Our secular Constitution does it for you just fine.

Today Romney gave a speech on his Mormonism to squelch the effects of religious bigotry on his chances of receiving the Republican nomination for President. In the speech Glen Johnson of AP cites these three quotes in succession (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071206/ap_on_el_pr/romney_religion_28;_ylt=...):

"Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."

He assailed "the religion of secularism" he said was creeping into American life, and drew chuckles from his invited audience as he complained that Europe's picturesque cathedrals are largely empty amid societies "too busy or just too `enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer."

Romney said: "We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders, in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history and, during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places."

So let me get this straight. We should be tolerant of other people’s revelation of the divine.

But if your personal revelation should lead you to a secular worldview, then you should just accept that you are not a citizen. At least that is what I take from his condemnation of the enlightenment (which by the way the founders would have taken a dim view of) and his endorsement of the phrases In God “WE” trust (if you don’t trust God you are not part of WE) and “One nation” under God (if you don’t believe in God you are not part of this “one nation).”

Way to attack religious bigotry Mitt. By perpetuating that a significant percentage of the American public is less American than others because of religious beliefs.

Hypocrisy, thy name is religion.

Tully

I'm not a huge fan of Chuck Grassley, the senior senator from Iowa, but he's certainly not the worst Republican in the lot. And I certainly have to applaud his willingness to jump into the shit of the financial abuses and excess of the so-called 'megachurches'. From an extensive NPR report this morning:

Grassley said there have been complaints about the pastors' extravagant lifestyles and questions about whether the churches' tax-exempt status is being abused. That includes the personal use of Rolls Royce cars, private jets and multimillion-dollar homes. Grassley is also looking into exorbitant salaries, so called "love offerings" or cash payments to ministers; a justification for layovers in Hawaii and the Fiji Islands; and in one case, the purchase of a $23,000 commode with a marble top.

"There's enough questions being raised that we felt it should be further investigated," Grassley told NPR.

Gee, ya think?

Man, you can't make this shit up:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that "jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, "…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."

Romney, whose Mormon faith has become the subject of heated debate in Republican caucuses, wants America to be blind to his religious beliefs and judge him on merit instead. Yet he seems to accept excluding Muslims because of their religion, claiming they're too much of a minority for a post in high-level policymaking.

Do you wanna know just how valued democracy is on the far Right? Here's a clue:

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

Musharraf has declared emergency rule in Pakistan, shut down the media and sent Supreme Court justices home. What's not to like about a guy who orders policemen to beat up lawyers? I bet he has a good plan on illegal immigration, too.

Need a bit more?

You wouldn't know it to read the headlines, but Musharraf has not staged a military coup. In fact, he was re-elected -- in a landslide -- just weeks ago under Pakistan's own parliamentary system.

But the Pakistani Supreme Court, like our own Supreme Court, believes it is above the president and refused to acknowledge Musharraf's election on the grounds that he is disqualified because he is still wearing a military uniform. That's when Musharraf sent them home.

Over the weekend, news came out of yet another "Trust us, we're the government" debacle, this time in the form of the principal deputy director of national intelligence saying that Americans have to give up on the idea that they have any expectation of privacy. Rather, he said, we should simply trust the government to properly safeguard the communications and financial information that they gather about us. No, I am not making this up. From the NYT:

“Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,” Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, told attendees of the Geospatial Intelligence Foundation’s symposium in Dallas.

* * *

If you haven't really been following the latest on the Telecom Immunity/Domestic Spying efforts by the Bush Administration, or even if you just were busy yesterday, you might want to check out what former AT&T technician and wiretapping whistle-blower Mark Klein has had to say on the matter. In particular, Senator Dodd has posted a 2 minute YouTube summary from Klein that'll give some idea of the scope of the surveillance. And in a discussion on NPR's All Things Considered yesterday, Klein goes into some detail about why he claims that AT&T was basically spying on each and every one of us who uses the internet to surf, post, or send email...before 9/11. It was, as he says in the YouTube summation, "Massively Unconstitutional".

So, you've probably heard about the situation in Pakistan:

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN; and NEW DELHI - Two days after President Pervez Musharraf suspended Pakistan's stuttering transition to democracy by declaring a state of emergency and dismissing most of its Supreme Court, a familiar pattern has set in.

Lawyers who took to the streets were beaten and arrested by the hundreds. Meanwhile, the country's fractured political establishment waits to see what will happen next. It is a similar dynamic to the one that emerged eight months ago, when Mr. Musharraf sought to sack an independent-minded Supreme Court chief justice for his willingness to defy the government.

Now, let's take a look at another passage in that news article: