Found at FiveThirtyEight.com:
So I've spent the past couple of days at meetings of various kinds in New York, and there was certainly a sense of impeding doom among many Democrats here. The cute analogy that I've come up with are that Democrats are like Cubs fans -- they assume that something will go wrong until proven otherwise.
John McCain, being a good Conservative, is against spending federal money on teen pregnancy prevention programs. His VP running mate, furthermore, agrees, stating in the past that sex-ed programs would not receive her support. After all, sex education and the prevention of unwed teen pregnancy is the role of the family, not Big Nanny Government.
It's the parents' job to teach their children about unwanted pregnancies, and preferably through the promotion of abstinence only.
Oh wait...
1. Simba turns 13 some time this month. He doesn't look a day over 11.
2. I can't even remember what movie we're supposed to be reviewing over at that other blog.
3. Congratulations to Verlinda on her upcoming retirement, even though she's too young to get an AARP card at this point.
4. Congratulations to my grandparents on their 64th Wedding Anniversary next week. Sorry, no link. My grandfather's LJ account got yanked due to the copyright holder complaining about his slash pairings. (But here's a link to a post about how they met.)
5. I've never liked the word dirigible.
6. Obama as president would be great for this country, better than Hillary will be for this country. However, either would be so much better than a thug as president of this country at this juncture in our history that I'm willing to forgive any problems I have with a Hillary nomination. Why can't everyone be as logical as me? Why do they hate America so?!?
7. Why do people always feel obligated to have ten items on a list such as this?
8. See above.
9. Working at the bookstore is hard financially. We're all allowed a "stash" to store stuff we want to buy, and we get a good (50%) discount on almost everything (exceptions: nostalgia and DVDS, which are only a measly 20%). My goal is to break even, meaning not spend more than I earn there.
10. The Cubs broke my heart again this year, but what else is new.
11. C i n d y and I are having trouble agreeing on a boy name (and no, this is just an intellectual exercise at this point). She likes names like Declan and Rowan. I want a normal name that people won't giggle at during attendance taking at school, yet I don't want it so drab and plain that it's "Michael" or something. Any suggestions?
| You are a Social Liberal (68% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (26% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid Free Online Dating Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test |
Okay, that's it. I'm completely fed up and unexcited by any of the potential Democratic candidates for president. I mean Barack? Not black enough, and kind of style over substance. Plus his name sounds awfully muslimy. Edwards? How could I vote for a man who'd put his own career ahead of his ailing wife? Hillary? I don't know... too... womanish. I think during these times of The Terrorist Menace we need at *least* one Y chromosome sitting in the oval office. If not two.
So who does that leave me with?
Mitt Romney. He's my man. And if Newt is his running mate, so much the better.
Via Crooks and Liars:
I'm betting that the likes of Malkin, Limbaugh, Instapundit, Powerline, etc, would be in a gaggle for weeks, it would be the main story on all the Sunday morning talk shows, and the subject of countless newspaper editorials.
But for Fox? Business as usual, nothing to see here, move along.
You know what annoys me? Yeah, it's hard to believe, but I do get annoyed occasionally. I'm annoyed that some have usurped the label patriot and claimed the flag for themselves.
Here I am, a bed-wetting Liberal, a progressive, a Democrat. And like most B-WL/P/D, I love my country. However, the dirty nasties have caused the word patriot to be almost an epithet to me. When I see someone pounding their chests, proudly proclaiming that they're A PATRIOT (always in caps), they're usually at best misguided ideological neocons, and at worst fascists (literal fascists). All those militiamen stockpiling weapons in the hills of Montana in order to prepare themselves for the armed-combated they know is coming when the black helicopters land and the blue-capped jack-booted One Worldists take over America call themselves "patriots", too.
Dick Cheney is a "patriot."
Et Cetera.
When I see a flag flying outside a home or from a car window I think the same thing, something like, "lookout, there's a Right Wing thug." Fairly or unfairly, this is what I think. Therefore, I feel that I can't fly a flag, lest some thing that I'm "one of them."
Now, this may be my problem, not the neocon's problem. After all, who cares if many associate flag-waving or "patriotism" with mind-numbing 100% agreement with this current administration? And actually, if more Liberals put flags on their cars and bandied about the word "patriot" when describing their personal ethos maybe we would reclaim the word and the flag from those that would paint us as America-hating Commies.
Point taken.
It wasn't always this way, however. I grew up in a very progressive village, and everyone put the flag up on Flag Day, The Fourth of July, Veteran's Day, and Memorial Day. We'd have big Memorial Day parades, where us kids would decorate our bikes with red, white, and blue crepe paper. We said the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag every morning in school. We watched "A Bicentennial Minute" on TV between Happy Days and Laverne & Shirley.
Et Cetera.
I blame Ronald Reagan. The same man that attempted to make Liberal a dirty word succeeded in claiming Patriotism and The Flag for The Right.
But then again, I like to blame Reagan for almost everything. Five sticks of gum in the pack instead of seven? Reagan.
You know what's getting old? The old "Ticking Bomb Scenario" that is used by some to justify the use of torture in the War On Terror. Those who point to Jack Bauer of the TV show 24 use him as their poster boy, and use the hypothetical example of a bomb in an urban center in an effort to reclaim the right to torture from the dictators and despots of history.
In short, for the two of you who haven't heard this before, the "Ticking Bomb Scenario" goes like this:
Terrorists have planted a bomb in a highly populated urban setting. You capture someone who you just know has information that will allow you to find and deactivate said bomb. Isn't it worth it, then, to torture this captive, if torture will help save millions of innocent lives in this American city?
There are several things wrong with this point of view, ranging from the belief that "information" and "confessions" gained via torture are apparently unreliable and inaccurate, to the fact that such a scenario is extremely unlikely to occur in the first place.
Yet, let's set aside these arguments. Let's assume for the sake of this blog entry that torture does yield useful information, accurate confessions, and that ticking bombs are being placed in major cities on a regular basis. I still say that our government should still officially state and codify into law that torture is never okay (and we'll set aside this particular government's twisting of the definition of torture as to make the word practically meaningless; let's pretend, again for the sake of this argument, that we all agree what torture is).
Let's take a look at an ill-fitting analogy that still might illustrate my point:
My friend starts going into convulsions whilst watching The Daily Show. He passes out, foaming at the mouth. So I carry him into the car (I'm strong) and speed to the emergency room.
Yeah, the speed limit is 30, but I'm going 85. I also go through a few red lights. But you know what? I've decided that I'd rather have the friend alive than worry about breaking some laws. However, if I did get a ticket in the mail from one of those Red Light Cameras, I'd pay the fine. I chose to break the law; I'm not demanding that the law be changed, that citizens get to decide when they want to obey traffic lights and when they don't. Sure, I might argue in court that I was running red lights "for a good cause", but that at best would be an extenuating circumstance. I still would not expect the law to be changed.
Same with torture. It's one thing for someone to decide, individually, that the ends justify that means, that one person is less important than the million in the ticking bomb scenario (aside: why the tick? Don't they use digital timers? WTF?); it's another vastly different thing to actually codify the use of torture, to give it the official Federal Government Stamp of Approval.
No.
Torture is wrong and should be punished, and those who torture should know that going in. It might actually make it less likely to occur, tick or no tick. If someone decided to torture to save millions, fine. He then, however, should still be held accountable for this illegal act in a court of law. If he was right, and he got useful information that saved millions (in my example, I ran the red lights and sped, and my friend was saved in the emergency room as a result), fine... let that be an extenuating circumstance that he'd use in the hope that the court would be lenient on him. If, however, he was wrong... if in fact he was torturing an innocent person, someone who had no information.... well then. The law would be clear.
The US of A simply cannot give the official okie dokie to torture and expect to win the hearts and minds of our own citizens, let alone the vast unwashed masses of the rest of the world. By becoming what we claim to abhor we debase ourselves and lose what little moral authority we have left.
Pssst. Over here. I'm going to let you in on a secret...
You know what's coming up in about 25 days?
Christmas.
I know most of you don't know this since the Evil Liberal Elite have done everything in their power to shut this holiday down. Because of them, because of everyone who says "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" I fear that this year we may all forget about this holiday.
The White House, for crissakes, is putting up what it calls a "Holiday Tree". With the leader of the free world leading in such a fashion, it's no wonder that there is scant mention of Christmas anywhere nowadays. We Christians are the vast majority of America, yet we get almost no support or recognition from our government at all.
It's like Christianity in general and Christmas in specific doesn't exist in this country. It's been swept under the rug, hidden from view. No longer remembered.
The simple greeting/statement "Merry Christmas" has been replaced by "Happy Holidays", and with it we've lost our biggest national holiday, a holiday that's all but forgotten now thanks to the MSM and secular relativists.
Remember how it used to be? Remember when there would be non-stop ads starting after Halloween? Remember when there used to be all those Christmas-themed TV shows, usually involving some riff on Dickens' "A Christmas Carol"? (Tonight on "Happy Days": The miserly Fonz is visited by The Ghost of Christmas Past and learns a valuable lesson about the True Meaning of the Yule Season). Well, those days are gone, thanks to our Liberal do-gooder friends. There's nary a mention of Chirstmas on TV anymore. I mean what the hell, 85% of this country are good, god-fearing Christians. Why, then, should we censor ourselves? If the other 15% don't like it they can get the hell out and worship their heathen idols or what have you in some other country.
But no. We've given into them, this squeaky minority, and now our children don't even know it's Christmas anymore, just like those skinny kids in the Band Aid video Bob Geldof produced all those years ago.
I say we reclaim our holiday!! It's not too late!!! If we act quickly, there still might be time for our cities and stores to hang garland and holly and wreaths and Christmas lights!!! It's so empty now without them.
I want Christmas back.
Remember Christmas?
I was listening to The Diane Rehm Show yesterday on NPR, and John McCain was the guest. He is of course out hawking his new book, and of course all anyone wants to talk about is the anti-torture bill he is trying to enact and the Iraqi war in general.
Well, a caller called in asking McCain if he thought the Constitution included a Right To Privacy, and if not would he be in favor of an amendment specifying/enumerating a Right To Privacy.
McCain answered, paraphrasing, "I know where you're going with this, The Patriot Act, right? And I agree--"
...at which point the caller interrupted saying, "Not just The Patriot Act, but other things, especially Roe v. Wade, where many say that the 1973 ruling was flawed because they don't believe there is a Right To Privacy in the Constitution"
... to which McCain replied that while he's in favor of an amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy, and that parts of the Patriot Act infringe on this, he's Pro-Life and doesn't think the Right To Privacy has anything to do with abortion.
Exactly. This is the point that many on the Left and/or pro-choice people don't get: there are many people who'd grant a right to privacy that still are anti-choice. To them abortion is murder, plain and simple, and no person has a "right to privacy" in order to commit a murder.
This is why I want to pull my hair out when many ask potential Supreme Court nominees if they "see a right to privacy in the Constitution" in an effort to get at their opinion on Roe v Wade specifically and a woman's right to choose in general. Alito, for example, appears to be saying that he believes there is a right to privacy at least implicitly put forth in the Constitution, and some pro-choice people are taking that as a hopeful sign.
To them I point to McCain's statement today.
You know what annoys me? I mean besides multiple rereleases of DVDs and important stuff like that? What annoys me is the fact that The Conservative Right have somehow usurped religion... like now only Right Wing Conservatives can be religious in general and Christian in particular. Those of you who know me or read my blog know that I'm not religious, so it should be no skin off my nose, but my family (grandparents, etc) are, and it bothers me that one particular political persuasion can lay claim to an entire religion. Contrary to what many believe, Liberals can indeed be religious, accept Christ as their personal savior, yadda yadda.
Which brings me to the fish bumper sticker. You've all seen it:
This means that the person who owns the car is a Christian. Why? Something about the Greek word for fish, which is something like ichthis (I can't be bothered to look this up, that's close enough) is sort of like an anagram for Jesus Christ, Son of God (or something like that. Again... close enough).
Fine and dandy. But as I've said, what is the political affiliation of said fish-bumper-sticker-person? You shouldn't really be able to tell, but more and more the religious politically outspoken person is Conservative. Whatever. And more and more, the religious Conservative is not a fan of evolution. Thus I really get a kick out of this sticker which I occasionally see:
Get it? Get it?! See, the fish has feet... an obvious nod to evolution, thus this person is proudly proclaiming to everyone on the highways and byways of this great nation that
"I may be religious, but dammit, that doesn't mean I've abandoned science. The two can coexist".
"Hey, I'm a Christian who still understands science, and I truly care about my fellow man as well."
Much better. This bumper sticker goes a long way towards showing the driving public that someone can believe in Jesus, understand and accept evolution and science in general, as well as having a heart while still being logical. That, my friends, is a bumper sticker for the ages.
I for one am proud that we have a president who has a personal relationship with God. It makes me feel safe. I also envy him. GBW, not God. Well, I guess I envy God, too. He probably never has to pay for parking, for example. But I digress.
I envy GW Bush because evidently God talks to him. They have personal conversations. Me, I'm lucky if God even pretends to laugh at my jokes. I mean, c'mon... throw me a bone every once in a while, Lord.
Once, however, I thought God was talking to me.
It was a couple of years ago, early in the morning. As I lay in bed I thought I heard God speaking to me in his soft, melodious manner (aside: isn't it lucky God speaks in such a manner as opposed to sounding like some 70 year old guy from Queens? That would be grating, what with the "yoose" this and "yoose" that. Or is that Brooklyn? I get my burroughs confused. Thank god God speaks with a good Midwest dialect).
I was all excited until I realized it was just my alarm clock radio going off. Turns out that it was not God but rather radio talk show host Glenn Beck wistfully speaking into my ear.
I hit the snooze button and all was well.
Maybe someone needs to tell George W. Bush about the snooze button.
As seen on the HuffPost, Larry David has a sleepless night:
The Roving Thoughts of a Liberal Insomniac
Key quote:
We have to start keeping them up. But how? The only things that bothers them enough to keep them up are fetuses. They love that fetus. The fetus and Jesus. Sounds like a comedy team. “Ladies and gentlemen, give a warm welcome to Fetus and Jesus…”As they say, read the whole thing.
I'm getting a kick out of such headlines and stories like this one:
Court: Some Ten Commandments Displays OK
It makes it seem like the SCOTUS is being a bit vague as to whether or not displays of the Ten Commandments by a government entity are okay or not.
On the one hand, in the Kentucky case, where the display was inside the courthouse and didn't really make any bones about the fact that it was a religious thing, the "court" ruled that such a display was not okay.
On the other hand, the "court" ruled in the Texas case that since the display was outside of the governmental building (the capitol in this case), and since other items of a non-religious nature were also on display, such a monument was okie-dokie.
I've even heard reports (on NPR just a minute ago) that "Chief Justice Rehnquist ruled that the Texas case involved a much lesser degree of a government putting forth a religious point of view" in opposition to the Establishment Clause.
Of course, Rehnquist ruled that in the Kentucky case(s) the Ten Commandment display was perfectly legal, too. And O'Connor ruled that both the Kentucky displays and the Texas displays were not okay, that they did violate the establishment Clause.
In fact, every single justice either ruled that both were legal or that both were illegal. Every justice but one, I should add: Stephen Breyer.
Both opinions really represent the differing points of view of Justice Breyer. Breyer believes that the Texas 10 Commandment monument is okay, whereas the Kentucky monuments are not okay.
It's really that simple. No one else was conflicted, and no one else saw a difference. Let's remember that when we see headlines like "Supreme Court Sends Mixed Message", etc. In this case, just Breyer is sending the mixed messages.
Seems to me like just yesterday The Right was bemoaning "activist judges" and the "unaccountable judiciary". They were lamenting, incorrectly, that there existed no "checks and balances" for the judiciary, those tyrants in robes thwarting the will of The People, safe with lifetime appointments.
Wasn't this the Mantra since at Least Reagan took office?
Why, then, is this same group of people now trying to make it easier for judges to be appointed? Instead of the de facto 60% required to confirm, they're trying to make it much easier for these Activist Will- Thwarters to sit on the bench. They want to change the rules so it will only take a 50% affirmative vote to confirm a judge to the bench.
As Jesus would say, "WTF?"
I don't get it. I don't get the logic. You complain about a runaway judicial branch, and then you make it easier for these judges to be confirmed.
If the "logic" is that they don't have to worry about "activist judges" if they are the party doing the appointing, then The Right is either short-sighted, hypocritical, or stupid (and probably all three, let's not kid ourselves):
From Time:
If the press was so free in the U.S., Putin asked, then why had those reporters at CBS lost their jobs? Bush was openmouthed. "Putin thought we'd fired Dan Rather," says a senior Administration official. "It was like something out of 1984." The Russians did not let the matter drop. Later, during the leaders' joint press conference, one of the questioners Putin called on asked Bush about the very same firings, a coincidence the White House assumed had been orchestrated. [emphasis mine]Interesting, and the White House would know about orchestrated questions during press conferences, so they must be right...
For the record, as long as The Right/Conservatism/Republicans align themselves with the idea that homosexuals are somehow second class citizens, I will proudly call myself a Liberal/Democrat.
Other core values that simply will not allow me to give up the "Liberal" label in favor of the more open-minded sounding "independent" include:
The longer perspective shows you where this race has been heading. CNN/Gallup shows that Bush-Cheney have lost six points since this time a month ago. Kerry-Edwards have gained nine points. That's a huge shift. So Zogby now shows a dead heat with Kerry nominally ahead by three points. WAPO shows a Bush lead - but only back to where he was a week ago and all within the margin of error. Bottom line: the race is dead-even. A month ago, it wasn't close. And the undecideds are leaning Kerry. Of course this is exactly the kind of moment that Kerry, like the Cubs, tends to screw up.
NEW YORK -- Illinois Republican Chairman Judy Baar Topinka said Wednesday her party's nominee for U.S. Senate, Alan Keyes, should apologize for his "idiotic" comment vice presidential daughter Mary Cheney and all homosexuals are "selfish hedonists."
[...]
"In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship," said Keyes, who holds a Ph.D from Harvard University. "That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. The word pleasure in Greek is hedone and we get the word hedonism from that word."
I wonder if this means that heterosexual couples using birth control are also selfish hedonists. Or what about heterosexual couples where one or both are not able to have children. Are they, too, using "organs intended for procreation for the purposes of pleasure" and thus also selfish hedonists?
I'm guessing not. Methinks that such couples get a pass. Assuming, of course, that they're married and God-fearing Christians to boot.
Poor Alan Keyes. He isn't to blame for this. It was of course the media's fault:
Keyes emphasized it was a reporter, not he, who brought up the name of Mary Cheney.
"You have intervened in order to try to personalize the discussion of an issue that I did not personalize," Keyes told reporters at an Illinois delegation caucus. "The people asking me the question did so and if that's inappropriate, blame the media. Don't blame me".
Posts
All Comments
