You know? I wonder what happens when those bombers who *KEEP* failing to bomb various areas in Britain and the U.S. manages, God forbid, to bomb the U.S. Or get caught in the process. Do you think that will be the "Catastrophic" event Bush needs to toss out the election and assume absolute power?
Well, with Bush's impatience, who knows.
Pray for safety, folks. We can't afford any more of this chaos.
-Matt
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Bye Bye Blair, Ol' Blighty gets Brown.
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Gordon Brown is the UK's new prime minister after replacing the outgoing Tony Blair on Wednesday.
"This will be a new government with new priorities, meeting the concerns and aspirations of the whole country. Let the work of change begin," said Brown as he arrived at 10 Downing Street following an audience with Queen Elizabeth II in which he was asked to form a new government.
Hours after stepping down, Blair was appointed to serve as a special envoy to the Middle East by the Mideast Quartet.
In a joint written statement, the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations confirmed the appointment.
Earlier, Blair addressed lawmakers in the House of Commons for the final time after more than a decade in power.
He was then photographed with his family outside No. 10 before leaving for Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation to the queen.
"I wish everyone, friend or foe, well and that is that, the end," he said in a fulsome and emotional tribute to his parliamentary colleagues following a good-humored session of Prime Minister's Questions.
Blair, who is set to become an envoy for Mideast peace, received a standing ovation as he stepped down from the dispatch box.
Opposition Conservative leader David Cameron led praise for his outgoing rival, hailing his "remarkable achievement" in serving as prime minister for 10 years and highlighting his commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process and to world development.
"For all of the heated battles across this dispatch box, for 13 years he has led his party, for 10 years he has led our country, and no one can be in any doubt in terms of the huge efforts he has made in terms of public service," said Cameron.
Democratic Unionist Party leader Ian Paisley, Northern Ireland's first minister and a key player in the peace process, said Blair had always treated him with "the greatest of courtesy" -- and wished Blair luck in his anticipated new role representing the Mideast Quartet.
"I just want to say to the prime minister this one word: He has entered into another colossal task," said Paisley.
"I hope that what happened in Northern Ireland will be repeated and at the end of the day he will be able to look back and say it was well worthwhile."
'Truly sorry'
Blair stands down after a decade in which Labour won a party-record three straight general elections, in which lasting peace was brought to Northern Ireland and the British economy enjoyed a record sustained boom.
But the Iraq war, the cash-for-honors row and his government's perceived preoccupation with media spin damaged Blair's reputation.
With anti-war protesters gathered outside Downing Street on Wednesday, Blair was once again forced to address the issue of Iraq as he paid tribute in parliament to UK soldiers killed in action during the past week.
"I am truly sorry about the dangers that they face today in Iraq and Afghanistan," Blair said.
"I know some may think that they face these dangers in vain; I don't and I never will. I believe they are fighting for the security of this country and the wider world against people who would destroy our way of life.
"Whatever view people take of my decisions, I think there is only one view to take of them: they are the bravest and the best."
One protester, Donna Mahoney, whose husband, Peter, committed suicide after serving in Iraq, said she was ecstatic that Blair was quitting.
"I needed to see him leave to prove that he is gone now and to close another part of this chapter," she told the UK's Press Association. "But I can't believe that he is going to be a peace ambassador."
Change of style
Prior to his re-election in 2005, Blair had vowed to serve a full third term. But political infighting within Labour ranks culminated in a political coup last year that saw him pledge to leave office early, honoring a long-standing pact to make way for Brown.
CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley said Brown would introduce a different style of government, restoring a more serious tone to British politics after the "sofa-style" decision-making of the Blair years.
"He is a very serious, committed politician very much driven by the values that he learnt from his Presbyterian minister father. We're going to see a lot less glitz and glamour," said Oakley.
"It will be very much a more 'get on the with the job' style of government," said Oakley. "There will be a lot of serious purpose."
"People are hopeful there is going to be a change of mood and a change of pace very quickly," Labour lawmaker Jeremy Corbyn, an outspoken critic of Blair and the Iraq war, told Reuters.
"The first priority of Gordon Brown has to be recognizing the disaster of the strategy in Iraq and making plans for the withdrawal of our forces."
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The end of Romney's campaign.
From CNN
-Matt
BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- An ever-present aide to Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney took a leave of absence Friday after he became the subject of investigations in two states for allegedly impersonating a law enforcement officer.
His attorney denied the charges.
Jay Garrity, who serves as director of operations and is constantly at the side of the former Massachusetts governor, is accused of leaving a lengthy message with the answering service of a plumbing company on Mother's Day, identifying himself as "Trooper Garrity" of the Massachusetts State Police and complaining about erratic driving by a company driver.
The district attorney in Boston is investigating the call, which was tape recorded by an after-hours operator. Impersonating an officer is a misdemeanor charge carrying a fine of up to $400 and one year imprisonment.
"Listening to the message, it sounded like he was calling control and speaking back and forth to people," said Dot Barme, whose Burlington company, Wayne's Drains, received the call. "I had my husband listen to it and he said, 'He's not talking to anybody; he's talking back and forth to himself," Barme told The Associated Press.
Stephen Jones, an attorney representing Garrity, said his client did not make the May 13 call, first reported by The Boston Globe, and has no connection with the cell phone to which it was traced.
"He has insisted since he's heard about this to have a voice analysis done to exonerate him or prove he did not do this," Jones said.
Jake Wark, spokesman for Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, confirmed the investigation.
"We're looking into a phone call placed to an area business by an individual who represented himself as a state trooper," Wark said. "We do not believe the person who made that call is a state trooper and we are working to determine his identity."
Meanwhile, Garrity also has been accused of telling a New York Times reporter who had been following Romney's motorcade in New Hampshire last month that he had run the license plate of the reporter's rental car, and that he should break away from the caravan.
The New Hampshire attorney general's office is investigating that incident after the reporter, Mark Leibovich, recounted the May 29 events in a story about Romney last weekend. New Hampshire law prohibits citizens from accessing the state's license plate database.
"Jay has taken a leave of absence from the campaign to address these complaints," said Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.
Jones, the Garrity attorney, disputed the sequence of events. Leibovich has stood by his version of the story.
In 2004, Garrity was cited and fined by Massachusetts officials after a Ford Crown Victoria registered to him was found to have lights, a siren, radios and other law enforcement equipment -- including a baton -- after it was parked illegally in Boston's North End. At the time, Garrity was paid $75,000 annually as Romney's gubernatorial chief of operations.
-Matt
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The Ideology War
There's that old saying "There are two sides of every coin". Many people don't think of a coin by it's two sides, but by the coin as a whole. When you reach into your pocket, and pull out a quarter, say, at a vending machine, you don't ask yourself "Which side should I have facing up when I use it?" You just take the coin, and put in the the machine. Many people who claim to be outside of the system, describe politics in this manner. Those who pretend not to be alligneed with a particular party, who say that "Democrats, Republicans, they're all apart of the same dirty coin." But I find that to be probably one of the biggest cop-outs of all political reasoning. Perhaps the DINOS and RINOS that dominate the system today are quite alike, the the true essence of Democrats, Liberalism, and the true essence of Republicans, Conservatism, are about as alike as a flower, and a bullet. And in fact, the proof they are so different, is how hard the fight eachother. How nasty things can get.
How is it, that people can look at two polar opposites, and claim they are similar? Here's how. Because the people who claim it, are part of one of the sides, and they always use it to distance themselves from the crimes of their ideology. Ironically, the only, and I mean the ONLY people in this country who make this pathetic cop-out, are the conservatives!
Many right-wing talking heads call what's going on here a culture war. This isn't a culture war. This is an Ideology War.
Many people use the term "Good and evil" as a tag for this Ideology war, and every Conservative loves to take the higher ledge over the Liberal. But what happens when the Liberal claims the higher ledge over the Conservative, the Conservative, who are so mentally assured of their own superiority, that they become so upset at anything that takes a whisper against them.
In the 1960's, Nixon laid the framework for the modern Republican. Since Nixon, every Republican has assumed the role, as a power starved, bomb happy, megalomaniacal madman. Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, they've all followed the pattern. Demonizing all that's Liberal, and in the same breath, each of them bringing the country to it's knees. Nixon once said that "Liberals like to claim Ideology was their own, but it isn't" But when you see the horrors inflicted on this country by every Republican that has ever touched power, how can one even think what Nixon said was true? When Conservatives can do so many purley evil things, things that no Liberal has ever even dreamed of, one has to draw the simple conclusion that ideologically speaking, we, as Liberals, must take the stance of political morality. But we live in such an immoral country. THATS the problem. In a country that is so in love with the idea of war, of power, of uneducation, and of Christian extremism, that nobody who stands for what's actually right and good in this country, is given the time of day.
This is a war folks, declared by the conservatives when they took power. For the longest time, we haven't fought back. Perhaps rightfully so, but look what has happened. When the schoolyard bully beats our faces in, we rely on the fact that he'll soon just walk away in disgust with himselves, but Conservatives don't work that way. They'll just keep coming, and coming, spitting on our constitution, raping our laws. And they dare to claim the moral high ground, because we believe in a woman's right to choose. In this world, the good grow weak, and the evil terrorize all. Thankfully, recently, we've started to fight back. And that's what we must do. The Neocons respond only to one thing. Action. Many of my liberal friends are calling on all of us, to stop fighting, and to just bear the onslaught of Conservative bullying. I say now, that I totally disagree. Conservatives, are weak. But since we became weaker, in contrast, the Conservatives became strong, but they are still weak. So when someone tells you to just deal with Conservative evils, just say "No." We've dealt with this crap from them long enough. If we can fight fire with water, then the American people will realize who is truly right in this Ideology war. Anybody with the sense God gave a slightly rubbed rhubarb branch knows this answer. I know the answer. Do you?
-Matt
How is it, that people can look at two polar opposites, and claim they are similar? Here's how. Because the people who claim it, are part of one of the sides, and they always use it to distance themselves from the crimes of their ideology. Ironically, the only, and I mean the ONLY people in this country who make this pathetic cop-out, are the conservatives!
Many right-wing talking heads call what's going on here a culture war. This isn't a culture war. This is an Ideology War.
Many people use the term "Good and evil" as a tag for this Ideology war, and every Conservative loves to take the higher ledge over the Liberal. But what happens when the Liberal claims the higher ledge over the Conservative, the Conservative, who are so mentally assured of their own superiority, that they become so upset at anything that takes a whisper against them.
In the 1960's, Nixon laid the framework for the modern Republican. Since Nixon, every Republican has assumed the role, as a power starved, bomb happy, megalomaniacal madman. Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, they've all followed the pattern. Demonizing all that's Liberal, and in the same breath, each of them bringing the country to it's knees. Nixon once said that "Liberals like to claim Ideology was their own, but it isn't" But when you see the horrors inflicted on this country by every Republican that has ever touched power, how can one even think what Nixon said was true? When Conservatives can do so many purley evil things, things that no Liberal has ever even dreamed of, one has to draw the simple conclusion that ideologically speaking, we, as Liberals, must take the stance of political morality. But we live in such an immoral country. THATS the problem. In a country that is so in love with the idea of war, of power, of uneducation, and of Christian extremism, that nobody who stands for what's actually right and good in this country, is given the time of day.
This is a war folks, declared by the conservatives when they took power. For the longest time, we haven't fought back. Perhaps rightfully so, but look what has happened. When the schoolyard bully beats our faces in, we rely on the fact that he'll soon just walk away in disgust with himselves, but Conservatives don't work that way. They'll just keep coming, and coming, spitting on our constitution, raping our laws. And they dare to claim the moral high ground, because we believe in a woman's right to choose. In this world, the good grow weak, and the evil terrorize all. Thankfully, recently, we've started to fight back. And that's what we must do. The Neocons respond only to one thing. Action. Many of my liberal friends are calling on all of us, to stop fighting, and to just bear the onslaught of Conservative bullying. I say now, that I totally disagree. Conservatives, are weak. But since we became weaker, in contrast, the Conservatives became strong, but they are still weak. So when someone tells you to just deal with Conservative evils, just say "No." We've dealt with this crap from them long enough. If we can fight fire with water, then the American people will realize who is truly right in this Ideology war. Anybody with the sense God gave a slightly rubbed rhubarb branch knows this answer. I know the answer. Do you?
-Matt
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Let The Revolt Begin
What could drive the Neeks to call the Bush Administration " Fiasco's" and 'Traitors"?
Well, with the seams of the RNC supperating and festering at an amazing rate, the last thing the Neocons need to do is eat their own. But with that magical immigration bill, it has sent the Bush Suckers in what could lead to the ultimate downfall of the Bush Crime Regime.
From CNN
Has America become a McDonalds? Because I'M LOVIN' IT!
-Matt
Well, with the seams of the RNC supperating and festering at an amazing rate, the last thing the Neocons need to do is eat their own. But with that magical immigration bill, it has sent the Bush Suckers in what could lead to the ultimate downfall of the Bush Crime Regime.
From CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Different conservative blogs have different pet issues -- government transparency, federal judges, Fred Thompson, to name a few.
But no issue in recent memory has united conservative bloggers like the debate over immigration. Their frustration has culminated in a full-scale revolt against the Bush administration and a Senate bill that activists say does little to solve the country's border security problems.
President Bush's pledge to support $4.4 billion in additional border security funds has breathed new life into the bill, but the drumbeat against the legislation shows no signs of quieting. (Watch how senators revived the immigration bill )
It's increasingly clear from Web postings and interviews with top conservative bloggers that the immigration bill has done serious damage to the president's credibility among the conservative netroots, the grassroots bloggers on the Web.
Erick Erickson, managing editor of the popular conservative blog RedState.com, says he receives between 800 and 900 e-mails a day from readers, most of whom are "enraged" by the White House's immigration efforts.
"Of all the issues the president has picked to make his hill to die on, he has picked the one that has divided his base," said Erickson, who lives in Macon, Georgia. "I am shocked by the anger and outrage out there ... You've got war against the president within the Republican party."
When details of an immigration compromise were announced this spring, conservative bloggers were immediately incensed. Michelle Malkin labeled it "a White House betrayal."
Another popular blogger, Hugh Hewitt, called the bill a "fiasco" and wrote: "this push for this bill is a disaster, Mr. President."
Bloggers: Secure the border first
Conservative bloggers make various arguments against the bill. Some say the bill grants amnesty to illegal immigrants who have already broken the law. Others say normalizing millions of new workers would depress wages and harm American workers.
Most conservative bloggers see border enforcement as the priority, an issue they say the president can enforce on his own without having to push a bill through Congress.
According to several top conservative bloggers, Bush simply has a credibility problem when it comes to border security.
"The administration has not done anything to fix the border or the visa program," said Ed Morrissey, the Minnesota-based founder of the blog Captain's Quarters. "It's a huge gap in national security. It's been six years past 9/11 and the administration has done nothing to fix either one."
Many bloggers said they are disappointed the president has pushed so hard for the immigration bill while letting the war and other issues conservatives care about fall by the wayside.
"The White House will go out and zealously promote Harriet Miers [the former White House counsel who Bush unsuccessfully nominated for the Supreme Court], defend [Attorney General] Alberto Gonzales, promote this bill, but will not take a firm stand on the war," said Erickson. "I know people who are boiling with rage that the president has been beating up his own side over this bill but won't take the bully pulpit to beat up Democrats over the war."
Bush did little to help his relationship with bloggers on May 29, when he told a crowd in Glynco, Georgia, that critics of the immigration bill "don't want to do what's right for America."
Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review asked, "Is the White House just not paying attention?"
The blog Ace of Spades HQ called Bush "incompetent" and "embarrassingly dimwitted" and urged him to retire.
Blogs and anti-immigration organizations used the Web to tap into the growing discontent over the immigration bill, using the Internet to organize phone and fax campaigns to urge senators to vote against the bill. It was a plugged-in show of force that would have been beyond comprehension a decade ago.
"The support for this issue has always been there, but the Internet is the platform the issue has needed to become a force in American politics," said David All, a Republican online strategist based in Washington.
Blogosphere ready for round two
When the bill was stymied by a procedural vote on June 7, the blogs claimed victory. A straw poll of conservative bloggers conducted by the Web site Right Wing News showed that 96 percent of bloggers surveyed were "pleased that the Senate immigration bill did not pass."
Now that the bill is back for a second round in the Senate, Bush could have a difficult time making new friends online beyond a relative handful of the bill's supporters.
"It will be very difficult for him to recover with conservative bloggers," said Robert Bluey, director of the Center for Media & Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation. "When Bush is on to his next issue, I'm not sure if bloggers are going to be there to back him up."
Which begs the question -- is Bush a lame duck among bloggers?
Said Morrissey: "I think that they are going to continue to support him on the war on terror. As for the rest of it, they are looking for ways to reshape the party agenda going into the next election. That's a nice way of saying they are going to consider him irrelevant."
Has America become a McDonalds? Because I'M LOVIN' IT!
-Matt
Friday, June 15, 2007
Mail-in Rebates
This is not a poltical issue but one that is relevant nonetheless... here's a link to an aticle dealing with "Mail in rebates". I have never liked these. For all the paperwork involved, it's a rare event that I ever get a check back from them. The simple fact is, don't buy anything based on a mail-in rebate or never expect to see anything back from one you do mail in!
click here
-Devon
click here
-Devon
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Around the Water Cooler
In the break room, I was talking to a collegue who is a Republican, about our representation in Washington. In this case, he comes from Tom Delay's part of the world and voted for him every time. But now, he confessed, he'd like to see Delay stipped of his shirt and flogged daily for his crimes against the people of his district and the US in general. He also suggested a creative use of "waterboarding" for Tom as a daily punishment. When I mentioned Delay's "my extramarital affair wasn't as bad a Newt's affair", he didn't even know that! Trust me, he had even more to add to Tom's punishment schedule with that additional information!
Obviously, the Repugnican party is falling apart at the seams. They are losing their base and alienating all their friends. This lifelong Republican, for all his good intentions and sky high ideals, was severely let down by poor leadership. I sense he will be vary wary of who he votes for in the next few elections. I've heard that it will be almost another generation before the Republicans outlive this travesty and, I sense it just might be the case.
-Devon
Obviously, the Repugnican party is falling apart at the seams. They are losing their base and alienating all their friends. This lifelong Republican, for all his good intentions and sky high ideals, was severely let down by poor leadership. I sense he will be vary wary of who he votes for in the next few elections. I've heard that it will be almost another generation before the Republicans outlive this travesty and, I sense it just might be the case.
-Devon
Marchant Votes to Stem Stem Cell Research
Hot off the press... in the recent vote regarding Stem Cell Research that was proposed once again by the Democratic Party, here's how "Representative" Marchant voted. Of course, it was AGAINST Stem Cell Research! In spite of his vote, the measure passed by a good majority. Once again, Kenny is behind the times and out of step with reality and progress.
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - Vote Passed (247-176, 10 Not Voting)
The House voted to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO....
Isn't it about time that Kenny gets a long, long vacation from Federal office?
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act - Vote Passed (247-176, 10 Not Voting)
The House voted to expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.
Rep. Kenny Marchant voted NO....
Isn't it about time that Kenny gets a long, long vacation from Federal office?
Monday, June 11, 2007
Who Are They Going to Hate Now?
Now that Falwell has passed the mantle... or rather it's being ripped from his cold, dead hands... the question remains: Where do they go from here? One "candidate" is Frank Page of the Southern Baptist Convention who is trying to "play nice" by putting on his best "sheep's clothing" and appear "moderate" but he's got a problem with the term "moderate". It's, well, "too moderate".
Frank S. Page, 54, is president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical "organization". He has explained his election as "a mandate for change". Of course, for those not on the inside, we're wondering what sort of change to expect.
Says Page, "I would not use the word 'moderate,' because in our milieu that often means liberal. But it's a shift toward a more centrist, kinder, less harsh style of leadership. In the past, Baptists were very well known for what we're against. . . . Instead of the caricature of an angry, narrow-minded, Bible-beating preacher, we wanted someone who could speak to normal people."
So, of course, Mr. Page has appointed himself the one to "speak to normal people". That begs the question, who is considered "normal" when compared to the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention? Obviously, they are catching on that they are not the best standard for what is "normal". It only been in recent years that they have dropped their stands against black membership and racial integration (and you thought the Mormons were alone in this?) and their stand against dancing, movies, and other sins of "the Devil".
With members of an older generation of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, the Rev. Pat Robertson, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, ailing or nearing retirement, Page is one of many pastors and political activists tugging conservative Christians in various directions.
Others include the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. William Hybels, megachurch pastors who are championing the fight against AIDS in Africa. David Barton, head of a Texas-based group called WallBuilders, stumps the nation decrying the "myth" that the Constitution requires separation of church and state. The Rev. Joel Hunter of Orlando urges evangelicals to see climate change as a serious religious issue, because "our first order in the Garden was to take care of the Earth."
"The evangelical movement as a political force is in a serious state of transition," Page said. "With the passing of Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are struggling to try to find the kind of cohesion he represented. That was going on even before he died."
When Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, the leadership torch was picked up by Robertson at the Christian Coalition. After that group ran into financial and management problems in the late 1990s, leadership passed to Dobson's radio ministry, Focus on the Family.
The absence of a national evangelical political leader was masked in recent years by the presence of President Bush, who served as a rallying point. But the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the only candidates in 2008 with wide appeal to evangelicals are ones, such as former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), who do not appear able to win.
Polls suggest that evangelicals under 30 are just as staunchly opposed to abortion, and almost as concerned about "moral standards" in general, as their elders. But a February Pew survey found that younger evangelicals are more likely than their parents to worry about environmental issues; 59 percent of those under 30 said the United States was "losing ground" on pollution, compared with 37 percent of those over 30.
Acceptance of homosexuality is also greater among young evangelicals. One in three under 30 favors same-sex marriage, compared with one in 10 of their elders.
Redeem the Vote, a group formed in 2004 to register young evangelicals to vote, is campaigning with black churches in Alabama for capping the interest charges on short-term "payday" loans, which can hit 400 percent a year. The group's founder, physician Randy Brinson, said he finds that young evangelicals are intensely interested in practical ways to help their communities and are little swayed by issues such as same-sex marriage.
"These kids have gone to school with people who happen to be gay, and they don't see them as a direct threat. They may think that lifestyle is wrong, but they don't see it as something that really affects their daily lives," Brinson said. "The groups that focus only on a narrow agenda, especially gay marriage and abortion, are going to decline."
So, what's in the future? The political arm of the religious right will eventually evolve (I love the irony!) into more socially responsive lobby groups focusing more and more on the real problems in their congregations and less on issues that don't directly effect them. They'll turn from being ChristoNazi's who yelp and bark at pro-Choicers, Gun Control Advocates, and Gays hiding in the trees and focus on the more tangible issues such as jobs and economic security (for their congregants and not just for their own self-serving needs). And this will happen very quickly over the next five years. Why? Mostly because the great icons of the ChistoNazi Movement are falling by the wayside and a new generation is coming into power. Falwell is dead and Pat Robertson may as well be dead. Ralph Reed the others like him discredited themselves in scandals. The rest? Well, the religion of Hate turns people off and eventually devours those who venture too close for too long.
Just be patient...
Frank S. Page, 54, is president of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the country's largest evangelical "organization". He has explained his election as "a mandate for change". Of course, for those not on the inside, we're wondering what sort of change to expect.
Says Page, "I would not use the word 'moderate,' because in our milieu that often means liberal. But it's a shift toward a more centrist, kinder, less harsh style of leadership. In the past, Baptists were very well known for what we're against. . . . Instead of the caricature of an angry, narrow-minded, Bible-beating preacher, we wanted someone who could speak to normal people."
So, of course, Mr. Page has appointed himself the one to "speak to normal people". That begs the question, who is considered "normal" when compared to the membership of the Southern Baptist Convention? Obviously, they are catching on that they are not the best standard for what is "normal". It only been in recent years that they have dropped their stands against black membership and racial integration (and you thought the Mormons were alone in this?) and their stand against dancing, movies, and other sins of "the Devil".
With members of an older generation of evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Billy Graham, the Rev. Pat Robertson, psychologist James C. Dobson and the Rev. D. James Kennedy, ailing or nearing retirement, Page is one of many pastors and political activists tugging conservative Christians in various directions.
Others include the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. William Hybels, megachurch pastors who are championing the fight against AIDS in Africa. David Barton, head of a Texas-based group called WallBuilders, stumps the nation decrying the "myth" that the Constitution requires separation of church and state. The Rev. Joel Hunter of Orlando urges evangelicals to see climate change as a serious religious issue, because "our first order in the Garden was to take care of the Earth."
"The evangelical movement as a political force is in a serious state of transition," Page said. "With the passing of Jerry Falwell, evangelicals are struggling to try to find the kind of cohesion he represented. That was going on even before he died."
When Falwell dissolved the Moral Majority in 1989, the leadership torch was picked up by Robertson at the Christian Coalition. After that group ran into financial and management problems in the late 1990s, leadership passed to Dobson's radio ministry, Focus on the Family.
The absence of a national evangelical political leader was masked in recent years by the presence of President Bush, who served as a rallying point. But the Rev. Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptists' Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the only candidates in 2008 with wide appeal to evangelicals are ones, such as former governor Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), who do not appear able to win.
Polls suggest that evangelicals under 30 are just as staunchly opposed to abortion, and almost as concerned about "moral standards" in general, as their elders. But a February Pew survey found that younger evangelicals are more likely than their parents to worry about environmental issues; 59 percent of those under 30 said the United States was "losing ground" on pollution, compared with 37 percent of those over 30.
Acceptance of homosexuality is also greater among young evangelicals. One in three under 30 favors same-sex marriage, compared with one in 10 of their elders.
Redeem the Vote, a group formed in 2004 to register young evangelicals to vote, is campaigning with black churches in Alabama for capping the interest charges on short-term "payday" loans, which can hit 400 percent a year. The group's founder, physician Randy Brinson, said he finds that young evangelicals are intensely interested in practical ways to help their communities and are little swayed by issues such as same-sex marriage.
"These kids have gone to school with people who happen to be gay, and they don't see them as a direct threat. They may think that lifestyle is wrong, but they don't see it as something that really affects their daily lives," Brinson said. "The groups that focus only on a narrow agenda, especially gay marriage and abortion, are going to decline."
So, what's in the future? The political arm of the religious right will eventually evolve (I love the irony!) into more socially responsive lobby groups focusing more and more on the real problems in their congregations and less on issues that don't directly effect them. They'll turn from being ChristoNazi's who yelp and bark at pro-Choicers, Gun Control Advocates, and Gays hiding in the trees and focus on the more tangible issues such as jobs and economic security (for their congregants and not just for their own self-serving needs). And this will happen very quickly over the next five years. Why? Mostly because the great icons of the ChistoNazi Movement are falling by the wayside and a new generation is coming into power. Falwell is dead and Pat Robertson may as well be dead. Ralph Reed the others like him discredited themselves in scandals. The rest? Well, the religion of Hate turns people off and eventually devours those who venture too close for too long.
Just be patient...
The Kid Who Was Told "Think For Yourself" And Became Liberal.
Probably the best advice my parents ever gave me was before I chose a Side, Religion, Moral System, etc, I had to study every side thorougly. Which has lead me to an interesting realization. Probably one of the sole reasons I am who I am, is because I was never indoctrinated into a way of thinking. Having a Democrat Mother, and a Republican Father, the side was really for me to take. And in any other situation, I could have, if in any other family, been born, and bred and indoctrinated into a NeoCon with as strength and furvor I have as a Liberal. The biggest difference was that in my life, I was given a choice, and was allowed to let my humanity judge which "Side" I agreed with. And during my period of choosing, I always kept a journal of my political and religious quest, and I'd like to take this opprotunity to delve into that old book that was given to me in the fall of 1998. (I was 9 years old).
First off I'll skipp the first few dates, since alot of it is hard to read, and many of it is really just talking about Bill Clinton. It amazes me how little I did know about the world back then. But I'll start off on one of my more educated, informed, and decisive (and perhaps easiest to read) entrys, dated 5.9.99. I'll start and quote the first paragraph with corrections of spelling.
"Was a long day. I got a chance to see the news today. There is something I don't get. There are bunches of people talking about the President. And wow, tons of books about him too. I remember when they were talking about him and Monica a year ago. But I thought that was over. There was a woman talking about him. She seemed very mean. She had called President Clinton typical something. I can't remember the word. Maybe I'll ask mom. But I didn't like the woman. Even though a lot of people are mad at the President, because he lied, that woman seemed really mean. And I don't think she knew what she was talking about. She kept calling him some word. Anyway, I'll figure out what it is."
Okay, doesn't sound like much, but this is actually a somewhat momentous occasion. Not only was my first exposure to the Painfull Pundit Ann Coulter, but as you'll see, there's another revalation I learned the next day. Halfway through the next entry.
"...Oh and by the way. I found out what that woman was calling President Bill. She kept calling him a "Liburel" (Yes that's how I spelled it), but I'm confused now. I looked up the word. Liburels sound like really nice people. I think liburels care for people alot. I don't think the man who hates the President, Newt, is a Liburel, because he is always hating people. I think mom is a Liburel too. I wonder if I am."
I think that really is a pivotal point in my life, when I begin to figure things out. I may post more on this later, but here's a small snippet of something much later, in May of 2000.
"Governer Bush is running for President. I don't like him. I think he's stupid, because he has trouble talking. I hope he doesn't become president."
I'd be willing to bet that if I gave this journal to a political analyst and a scientist, they'd probably be able to find some pretty interesting things about how people become various political stances.
-Matt
First off I'll skipp the first few dates, since alot of it is hard to read, and many of it is really just talking about Bill Clinton. It amazes me how little I did know about the world back then. But I'll start off on one of my more educated, informed, and decisive (and perhaps easiest to read) entrys, dated 5.9.99. I'll start and quote the first paragraph with corrections of spelling.
"Was a long day. I got a chance to see the news today. There is something I don't get. There are bunches of people talking about the President. And wow, tons of books about him too. I remember when they were talking about him and Monica a year ago. But I thought that was over. There was a woman talking about him. She seemed very mean. She had called President Clinton typical something. I can't remember the word. Maybe I'll ask mom. But I didn't like the woman. Even though a lot of people are mad at the President, because he lied, that woman seemed really mean. And I don't think she knew what she was talking about. She kept calling him some word. Anyway, I'll figure out what it is."
Okay, doesn't sound like much, but this is actually a somewhat momentous occasion. Not only was my first exposure to the Painfull Pundit Ann Coulter, but as you'll see, there's another revalation I learned the next day. Halfway through the next entry.
"...Oh and by the way. I found out what that woman was calling President Bill. She kept calling him a "Liburel" (Yes that's how I spelled it), but I'm confused now. I looked up the word. Liburels sound like really nice people. I think liburels care for people alot. I don't think the man who hates the President, Newt, is a Liburel, because he is always hating people. I think mom is a Liburel too. I wonder if I am."
I think that really is a pivotal point in my life, when I begin to figure things out. I may post more on this later, but here's a small snippet of something much later, in May of 2000.
"Governer Bush is running for President. I don't like him. I think he's stupid, because he has trouble talking. I hope he doesn't become president."
I'd be willing to bet that if I gave this journal to a political analyst and a scientist, they'd probably be able to find some pretty interesting things about how people become various political stances.
-Matt
Friday, June 8, 2007
See! I told ya!
From MSN.com...
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man picked as Adam by a museum based on the Bible's version of Earth's history led quite a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a line of clothing with an explicit mascot.
Registration records show that Eric Linden, who portrays Adam taking his first breath in a film at the newly opened Creation Museum, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat. He has been pictured there, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo.
The museum's operators, informed Thursday by The Associated Press of Linden's online appearances, acted swiftly to suspend airing of the 40-second video in which he appeared.
The clip is one of 55 featured on tours of the museum, near Cincinnati in Petersburg, Ky., which tells the Bible's version of Earth's history that the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago.
"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in an e-mail statement.
----------------
See! I told you this "museum" would generate some real laughs for us! I mean, after all they call it a "museum". That was only the beginning. In this latest episode, they discover they hired a porn dealer and model for their "Adam"! ROFLMAO!
It reminds me of the former Soviet Union that constantly tried to convince not only their citizens but the rest of the world that they invented things they never invented, produced goods they never produced, grew crops they never grew. They succeeded only at self-deception and, that for only 80 years before the house of cards fell in on them. So, the crazy-ass fundamentalists will eventually implode from their lies and deceptions. In the meantime, we get a good laff! Thanks Gods!
-Devon
COLUMBUS, Ohio - The man picked as Adam by a museum based on the Bible's version of Earth's history led quite a different life outside the Garden of Eden, flaunting his sexual exploits online and modeling for a line of clothing with an explicit mascot.
Registration records show that Eric Linden, who portrays Adam taking his first breath in a film at the newly opened Creation Museum, owns a graphic Web site called Bedroom Acrobat. He has been pictured there, smiling alongside a drag queen, in a T-shirt brandishing the site's sexually suggestive logo.
The museum's operators, informed Thursday by The Associated Press of Linden's online appearances, acted swiftly to suspend airing of the 40-second video in which he appeared.
The clip is one of 55 featured on tours of the museum, near Cincinnati in Petersburg, Ky., which tells the Bible's version of Earth's history that the planet was created in a single week just a few thousand years ago.
"We are currently investigating the veracity of these serious claims of his participation in projects that don't align with the biblical standards and moral code upon which the ministry was founded," Answers for Genesis spokesman Mark Looy said in an e-mail statement.
----------------
See! I told you this "museum" would generate some real laughs for us! I mean, after all they call it a "museum". That was only the beginning. In this latest episode, they discover they hired a porn dealer and model for their "Adam"! ROFLMAO!
It reminds me of the former Soviet Union that constantly tried to convince not only their citizens but the rest of the world that they invented things they never invented, produced goods they never produced, grew crops they never grew. They succeeded only at self-deception and, that for only 80 years before the house of cards fell in on them. So, the crazy-ass fundamentalists will eventually implode from their lies and deceptions. In the meantime, we get a good laff! Thanks Gods!
-Devon
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Embryonic Stupidity
Spoiling for a veto fight, Congress cleared legislation Thursday easing restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
The House vote to send the measure to President Bush was 247-176, 35 short of the level needed to override a second veto in as many years on the issue.
“For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of potential treatments and cures” for debilitating disease, said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill’s leading advocate.
“Unfortunately, because of the stubbornness of one man — President Bush — these people continue to suffer as they wait,” she added.
The president was unpersuaded.
“If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos,” he said in a statement in Germany, where he was attending a summit of world leaders.
“Crossing that line would be a grave mistake. For that reason, I will veto the bill passed today,” he added.
Bush’s written statement echoed criticism leveled in an hour-long debate on the House floor, where opponents of the measure said the research requires the destruction of human embryos, and that alternatives have shown more promise.
“You’re talking about spare embryos now but if it ever did work ... it would require the killing of millions of embryos,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.
He also said a recent report by the U.S. Catholic Conference listed numerous breakthroughs involving research conducted on adult stem cells, cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.
The measure drew the support of 210 Democrats and 37 Republicans. Opponents included 16 Democrats and 160 Republicans.
-----------------------
My two cents...
It's amazing how this President sat on his hands for five years as the Repugnican Party looted the US treasury with one spending bill after another and he never vetoed ONE! He sat by as the Repugnican lead Congress tore out large parts of the US Constitution and didn't veto ONE. But Stem Cells that can save lives and end suffering? BOOM! He drops the Veto Bomb like it was the capital of North Korea. And he does this because he believes it would "cross a moral line". Such self-righteous nonsense coming from a man who historically only seemed to repect the white powdery line that would ultimately go up his nose?!
Then, Repugnican Parrots like Chris Smith take it one further step beyond stupidity with the "argument" that stem cell research, if it's successful, may lead to the "killing of more" embryos!
Let's jump back a couple decades and look at transplanting body parts. If it's found that a human heart can be transplanted sucessfully, then ultimately we'll be killing people to harvest their hearts. Or kidneys. Or Lungs.
The House vote to send the measure to President Bush was 247-176, 35 short of the level needed to override a second veto in as many years on the issue.
“For many, embryonic stem cell research is the most promising source of potential treatments and cures” for debilitating disease, said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., the bill’s leading advocate.
“Unfortunately, because of the stubbornness of one man — President Bush — these people continue to suffer as they wait,” she added.
The president was unpersuaded.
“If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers would for the first time in our history be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos,” he said in a statement in Germany, where he was attending a summit of world leaders.
“Crossing that line would be a grave mistake. For that reason, I will veto the bill passed today,” he added.
Bush’s written statement echoed criticism leveled in an hour-long debate on the House floor, where opponents of the measure said the research requires the destruction of human embryos, and that alternatives have shown more promise.
“You’re talking about spare embryos now but if it ever did work ... it would require the killing of millions of embryos,” said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.
He also said a recent report by the U.S. Catholic Conference listed numerous breakthroughs involving research conducted on adult stem cells, cord blood and amniotic fluid, none of which involve the destruction of a human embryo.
The measure drew the support of 210 Democrats and 37 Republicans. Opponents included 16 Democrats and 160 Republicans.
-----------------------
My two cents...
It's amazing how this President sat on his hands for five years as the Repugnican Party looted the US treasury with one spending bill after another and he never vetoed ONE! He sat by as the Repugnican lead Congress tore out large parts of the US Constitution and didn't veto ONE. But Stem Cells that can save lives and end suffering? BOOM! He drops the Veto Bomb like it was the capital of North Korea. And he does this because he believes it would "cross a moral line". Such self-righteous nonsense coming from a man who historically only seemed to repect the white powdery line that would ultimately go up his nose?!
Then, Repugnican Parrots like Chris Smith take it one further step beyond stupidity with the "argument" that stem cell research, if it's successful, may lead to the "killing of more" embryos!
Let's jump back a couple decades and look at transplanting body parts. If it's found that a human heart can be transplanted sucessfully, then ultimately we'll be killing people to harvest their hearts. Or kidneys. Or Lungs.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Post Debate Roundup: Matthew's Rankings
Okay, here are my rankings of the candidates after watching the debates, from best to worst.
#1 (Tie) John Edwards, and Mike Gravel.
#2 Barack Obama
#3 Dennis Kusinich
#4:Joe Biden
#5:Hillary Clinton
#6:Chris Dodd
#7: Bill Richardson
Here's why:
First off, Mike Gravel blew the rest of the candidates out of the water. Literally. He wasn't afraid to tell the others that they were as responsible for the war as Bush, for (most of them) voting for it in the first place. Also, Gravel set out a solid plan for what he would do in the first 100 days. The sheer and absolute outrage that I personally felt was how he was practically segrigated from the other candidates. In the second part of the debate, he was literally seperated from the other candidates by a whole table, in the far left hand corner of the "cresent" of the chairs. That was to me, so crass. An outrage even. Now, in terms of his electability, that's why he needs to be level with John Edwards. John, also, made some extremely good points. He was able to answer questions smartly and promply, and he's electectable, intelligent, and dammit people like him.
Barack came in a close second. His plans for the future, and his intelligence was admirable to say the least. His healthcare plan is paletable, and it seems he has his act, for the most part, together. He was able to answer the tough questions without getting tricked into some of the setup questions that (Former U-Boat Commaner) Vulf Blitza sneaked in.
Dennis Kusinich, is probably the ultimate liberal. And that helps him, and hurts him in the same swipe. One of the problems he had was when he was asked "If you were given the opprotunity to take out Bin Laden, with some civilian casualties, Dennis basically said "No." Wishing to take a more "Diplomatic" approach to it, putting Osama in front of a court. Now, everyone disagreed with him, be that a good thing or a bad thing. But, other than that, Kusinich made some eccelent points, which leads me to believe he would make the best Vice President this country has ever had (save, perhaps, for Al Gore).
Joe Biden.....well, Personally, I can never forgive him for continuing this war. But that aside, he had great conviction, and had some of the best One-Liners of the whole group, bringing me to agree with him on some (not nearly all) of his points. He made very good the case for continuing to fund the war, though I still greatly disagree with him. That said, One thing Biden has going for him is an amazing talent as an Orator. He would be one of the best speaking presidents this country would know for a while. But so did Gravel for that matter.
Hillary Clinton....again, I'm not very keen on her, but she did do a little better than last time. My problem with her is that her approach to many things are too conservative, and too indirect. If she can take a more affirmative stance on many things, then I may take a kinder look on her, but the biggest, most prominant, most screaming thing she has going against her (apart from her general un-likability) is that she is (yes...) a woman. And I of all people hate to say this, but America just isn't ready for a Woman to be president. I'm sorry. That's just a fact. As much as I think a Woman would make such a great president, with the mental capacity, reasoning, and dexterity that no man could possibly possess, it's just not Hillary. (Yet, anyway) That, and she needs to STOP saying "I was the senator of New York) again, and again, and again, and again. Hillary, WE KNOW!!!!!
Chris Dodd, for me, was one of the more dissapointing candidates. While many points he had were good, and valid, there were a few instances where he just didn't answer the questions, either intentionally or accidentally, some very important questions were practically dodged by Dodd. Now, this is reconcillable, but for now, I'm pretty dissapointed with Dodd at the moment. I truly hope that for the next "Debate", he can rectify his mistakes.
Bill Richardson... now here was someone whom I really really wanted to do well. But after the debacle of a debate he gave the first time, I was really hoping (even moreso) that he would do better. Alas, even after things seemed to be going well, he had to screw it all up, by saying that the first thing he would do as president, would not be ending the war, would not be balancing the budget, eliminating corruption, or re-establishing America's rightful place as Moral center for the world, not even ending the geonocide in Darfur, which all other candidates said they would in a heartbeat. no...none of those. He said the first thing he would do is "Reform Education." WHAT?!?!?!?!?! With a Campaign of Extermination going on in the world around you, with Darfur, Iraq, you want to worry about EDUCATION?! Yes, I agree, the education system needs reformation, but my god, man! One would think that some other, slightly more pressing issues would take PRIORITY over reforming EDUCATION! Bill Richardson, my advice to you is either get your act together and work out a more solid and workable plan for your presidency, or get the hell out of the race. And I really, truly hate to say that, since Richardson is an immensly qualified man to lead this country. But if you keep royally screwing up debates like this, then don't expect to get the nomination.
That's my say. I welcome other opinions as well.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Sounds Like Eleanor to me!
“This is a woman who led a camouflaged life and continues to,” Cerl Bernstein told TODAY host Matt Lauer on Friday in an exclusive interview. “This book takes away that camouflage.” The book, which he called the first “real biography” of Hillary Clinton, will be available on June 5.
To tell the story of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey from a humble childhood marked by abuse at home to the White House, and later the U.S. Senate, Bernstein talked to about 200 close friends and advisers to the Clintons. Bernstein said he learned a lot about Hillary Clinton, including steps she took to try to silence the various women linked to her husband throughout his political career.
Bernstein mentions the women and the relationships in the book, but avoids the steamy, sensational details about Bill Clinton’s dalliances other books cover. If a reader wants those details, he told Lauer, they should “go to another book.”
“There’s not a sex act mentioned in this book,” he added. “What is important is Hillary savaging the women he was with, forgiving Bill repeatedly throughout their married life, but not forgiving the women he was with.”
Bernstein’s book also explores Clinton’s strained relationship with her disciplinarian father, the development of her religious convictions, and her political ideals that took shape during her studies at Wellesley and Yale Law School. The author goes on to disclose, among other things, that Bill Clinton fell in love with another woman while becoming a rising political star in Arkansas, and quotes insiders who say Hillary Clinton wouldn’t give him a divorce.
Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, dismissed the relevance of Bernstein’s work, saying the book is intended to make the Clintons look bad for profit, yet again. Lauer said Reines told TODAY: “Is it possible to be quoted yawning? This is an author’s agenda to take an old story and rehash for cash.”
------------
of course, my two cents...
All this sounds so much like the dedicated woman who managed the Domestic Front while he husband fought a World War in the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters. It sounds like Eleanor Roosevelt and, by God, we really will need someone like that in the next decade as the US tries to undo the damage done by the Bush regime. So she handled Bill's sexual issues and "girl friends" like... well... a good, loving wife, committed to her marriage. So, she rose from abuse and poverty to become a successful attorney, First Lady and Senator. So, she has the ability to "camouflage" herself. That should help in the Foreign Affairs as she tries to repair our tarnished reputation around the globe. Dang! Good for her and good for us if she elected President!
-Devon
To tell the story of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s journey from a humble childhood marked by abuse at home to the White House, and later the U.S. Senate, Bernstein talked to about 200 close friends and advisers to the Clintons. Bernstein said he learned a lot about Hillary Clinton, including steps she took to try to silence the various women linked to her husband throughout his political career.
Bernstein mentions the women and the relationships in the book, but avoids the steamy, sensational details about Bill Clinton’s dalliances other books cover. If a reader wants those details, he told Lauer, they should “go to another book.”
“There’s not a sex act mentioned in this book,” he added. “What is important is Hillary savaging the women he was with, forgiving Bill repeatedly throughout their married life, but not forgiving the women he was with.”
Bernstein’s book also explores Clinton’s strained relationship with her disciplinarian father, the development of her religious convictions, and her political ideals that took shape during her studies at Wellesley and Yale Law School. The author goes on to disclose, among other things, that Bill Clinton fell in love with another woman while becoming a rising political star in Arkansas, and quotes insiders who say Hillary Clinton wouldn’t give him a divorce.
Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, dismissed the relevance of Bernstein’s work, saying the book is intended to make the Clintons look bad for profit, yet again. Lauer said Reines told TODAY: “Is it possible to be quoted yawning? This is an author’s agenda to take an old story and rehash for cash.”
------------
of course, my two cents...
All this sounds so much like the dedicated woman who managed the Domestic Front while he husband fought a World War in the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters. It sounds like Eleanor Roosevelt and, by God, we really will need someone like that in the next decade as the US tries to undo the damage done by the Bush regime. So she handled Bill's sexual issues and "girl friends" like... well... a good, loving wife, committed to her marriage. So, she rose from abuse and poverty to become a successful attorney, First Lady and Senator. So, she has the ability to "camouflage" herself. That should help in the Foreign Affairs as she tries to repair our tarnished reputation around the globe. Dang! Good for her and good for us if she elected President!
-Devon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)