The man who would be king...

Kudos to Jim Smith for this piece, except for the last sentence:

Good news, though, with some people strongly in favor of mandatory draft registration for 18-year-old women as well as men, there may be a much more complete cross section of American youth getting killed in the very near future.

We really don't want any American youth getting killed in a war of politics, but if they have to die, the only way we can have a more complete cross section is if we get some "fortunate sons" in there. Sons and daughters of Congress, of judges, of the Executive cabinet. George aWol Bush's daughters are just about the right age for the draft, yes?

Bush Not Conservative Enough for Reactionary Right

The following is a quote from an article on a website called the Intellectual Conservative titled "Why Christians Should Not Vote for George W. Bush". (Not that I'm averse to their goal -- i.e. ousting Bush -- but their reasoning obviously leaves something to be desired). I'm rarely able to get through an entire article posted at IC without tiring of the drivel and moving on. However, I post this quote as it was the genesis for me postulating the following question: "Is it all a simple matter of perspective, or is the Christian Right really so out of touch with reality?"

Many Christians were undoubtedly innocently ignorant of George W. Bush's liberal tendencies...

GW displaying liberaltendenciess? I don't think so. Of course, it begs the question, "What exactly is 'liberal'"? But I would contend that even when defined by the most generic of terms, GW hardly fits the bill. Meriam-Webster Online defines the term thusly:

a person who is liberal: as a) one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways b) capitalized -- a member or supporter of a liberal political party c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights

Certainly, one wouldn't consider George as being open-minded (if he would ever act like he had a mind to open) or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. He is most certainly not a member or supporter of a liberal political party. And he would most likely not be considered an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights, given his cabinets historical reduction in civil liberties.

So, I'm left to believe that anyone so conservative as to make a statement that George has liberaltendenciess leans so far to the right as to have lost touch with reality. Maybe a better question than my original is, can one's social views lean so far to one direction that they skew reality? And is it the views, or the person who adopts those views, to blame?

Okay, too much thinking for me. On to my usual sardonic commentary. =)

Having an IQ greater than a slug is not necessary in order to be a Christian.

You can say that again!

Okay, so now I'm about half way through this incredibly long article and I'd like to change my whole thoughtful question. These people are clearly, just utterly fucked in the head. They find GW not to be anti-abortion. They find him not to be anti-sodomy.

Conservatives all over the nation are significantly frightened right now about the prospects of Federally mandated "gay marriages".

Thanks to a popular interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, those suits (which might be filed to require states to recognize marriages performed Massachusettes) may be successful and if they are, the social and financial benefits states grant to marriage will be minimized and the covenant of marriage in America will be crippled.

I've yet to see even an argument, let alone proof, put forth as to how gay marriage will diminish straight marriage.

Similarly, conservatives fear the judicial activism that is forcing a new religion down our throats, namely, atheistic humanism. We have Federal judges like U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruling that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore has no right to acknowledge God on the job.

Thompson is no atheist, he's a conservative Christian...he just has intelligence enough to know that the law is clearly not on the side of fundamentalist Chrsitians. Further proof that he's no flaming liberal: Bush had to sneak him on to the bench with a recess appointment. His second such move in the past several months.

The Intelligent Conservative (I know, I know...stop laughing for just a minute, though) has a whole laundry lists of grievances against Bush for not being an "authentic conservative". The following is part of that list.

* His support of increased Federal involvement in the education of children at the state and local level. Funding for government education has increased billions of dollars under President Bush.

Ironic as it may seem, Bush prides himself on being a education advocate. Of course, an intelligent and educated populace is antithetical to the Conservative movement, so obviously, increasing funding for education is very, very bad. On the other hand, Bush is a huge supporter of school vouchers which boils down to government funding of religious indoctrination (in the case of those parents who choose to use their vouchers to send their kids to parochial school). The Intelligent Conservative (come on...stop giggling!) somehow misses GW's love of vouchers.

* His proposal to increase the budget and the power of the Internal Revenue Service: "Bush would give the IRS a 5.3 percent boost to $10.4 billion for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. That will include $133 million dollars for added audits of businesses and high-income taxpayers."

Yeah! Why are we wasting money on going after high-income taxpayers?? We should be going after big businesses and high-income tax avoiders!!

* His endorsement and promotion of the globalist, sovereignty-threatening aims of the United Nations.61, 62 He has continued the Clintonian policy of sending our soldiers to serve under U.N. commanders on U.N. missions.

I guess the I.C. hasn't heard of a little playground skirmish known as the Iraq war; in which GW unilaterally ignored the U.N. and went on his own to not only threaten, but violate, the sovereignty of another country.

* With the so-called Patriot Act and the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, his remedy for terrorism has been an ever-growing police state. These pieces of legislation read like KGB manuals of an all-powerful Leninist state. The government can bug and search citizens and their private records without court oversight and without suspicion of a crime; they can lock you up indefinitely without a formal charge; they can deny you an attorney and a jury of your peers, etc. Our leaders have exploited a tragedy to retire as the servants of the citizens and attempt to usurp constitutional limitations to become our masters.

You'll get no argument from me on this one.

As for me and my house, we will support and vote for a Presidential candidate that is pro-life without exceptions...

Nothing like living in a "traditional" home where the wife and children have no say, no freedom to choose anything in contravention to the "man of the house". It's ironic that someone who has a problem with GW taking freedoms from us would do the same to his very own family.

A Christian Group I might like

The Common Good Network, a website for the group Protestants for the Common Good "People of faith advancing justice in public life" seems to be a pretty intelligent organization. Not sure what they're all about, but I definitely like the following piece that they have posted on their website:

In defense of Biblical marriage

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us to: "Pray for
the President as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the
definition of marriage. Pray that it will be according to Biblical
principles. With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will be honored by
our government." This is true.

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by
action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals,
is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely
on biblical principles:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between
one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron
11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut
22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be
construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry
the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or
deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one
shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law.
(Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your
town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with
him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men
young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of
course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Puttin' the f-u-n in Fundie

Is that you, God?

In another fund-raising letter dated 1992, the benevolent reverend (Pat Robertson) wrote these words, "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."

Waaaa!! The feminists are coming, the feminists are coming!!

To his viewing audience he declared that Planned Parenthood, "...is teaching kids to fornicate, teaching people to have adultery, every kind of bestiality, homosexuality, lesbianism -- everything that the Bible condemns."

Oh, Pat, you're so silly.

In another moment of compassion, he made this comparison: "Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together."

Uhhh...doesn't Pat know that Grand-daddy Bush was involved with Hitler? I guess that makes GW's grandpappy a gay satanist!

He (Jerry Falwell) holds no qualms to his beliefs that, "If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being, or that "AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

Bonk!

The Rev. Falwell imparted his unearthly wisdom as he told his disciples that, "The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

Oh, Jerry, you're as silly as Pat!

"Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them."

Stop, Jerry, you're killing me!

"AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh's charioteers."

Whoops! Looks like Jerry's "just God" missed the mark slightly on that one and (accidentally?) infected a whole bunch of straight people with AIDS, too. I wonder if Jerry feels that cancer and the ebola virus are also punishments from his god for something that people Jerry hates have done. And I wonder if Jerry thinks we should do no medical research at all to try and cure diseases.

The undeniable king of prophesy; however, is Benny Hinn. On April 2, 2000, on a TBN Praise-a-thon, he announced, "I'm prophesying this: Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is about to appear physically in some churches and some meetings and to many of His people, for one reason - to tell you He's about to show up."

What?? He's coming to tell you he's coming? Wow. What an important message.

On January 1st, 1990, the self-proclaimed oracle, shared two divinations:

"The Lord also tells me to tell you in the mid-90's, about '94, '95, no later than that; God will destroy the homosexual community of America. ... He will destroy it with fire. And many will turn and be saved, and many will rebel and be destroyed."

His second foretelling was, "The Spirit tells me Fidel Castro will die in the '90s." He elucidated that it would be a very horrible death!

Damn, he's good at this!

Bonk Job Tim LaHaye

Reverend Doomsday

If the Bible (Revelation 9:1-11) says that billions of six-inch-long scorpionlike monsters with the heads of men, "flowing hair like that of women" and the teeth of lions, wearing crowns and helmets, will swarm across the globe gnawing on unbelievers...

Odd...the Bible describes an army of Ann(thrax) Coulter clones?

The Act of Marriage, a best seller published in 1976 and co-authored with Beverly LaHaye, is an explicit Christian sex manual, condemning "petting," abortion and homosexuality.

"Explicit"? I'm sure. It must be dripping with such sinfully saucy phrases as "go in unto her" and "he had lain with her". Not that the book would condone good Christian couples engaging in such salacious activities! The message is likely more along the lines of, "Don't touch your wife or you'll go to hell! Don't enjoy sex. In fact, don't even have sex unless you're trying to have children and even then, do not, under an circumstances, enjoy it".

In 1979, he established Californians for Biblical Morality...

I'd like to take a moment to explore what, exactly, "Biblical Morality" might be. Might it be the stoning to death of non-virgin brides? (Deut. 22:20-21) Might it be killing children who curse or disobey their parents? (Ex 21:15, 17...also Lev. 20:9 and Deut. 21:18-21) Or perhaps Biblical morality involves stoning to death a virgin who is engaged but doesn't yell loud enough if she's raped? (Deut 22:23-24) Of course, if the virgin isn't engaged, then her rapist pays her father 50 shekels and then marries her. (same book and chapter, verses 28-29) Both books of Samuel and both books of Kings are rife with incest, rape, incestuous rape, polygamy and murder. In several cases, God has no comment on this behavior by his children. Implied approval? Or maybe the authors were just getting so tired of writing about all this that they didn't have the energy to record God's anger after each act. More Biblical morality: Happiness is smashing little children with stones. (Psalms 137:9)

Well, that was getting old. Of course, it doesn't really matter how many immoral, unethical, incestuous, murderous, polygamous, mysoginist examples a person quotes from the Bible (as examples of things God approved, not as examples of what not to do), the Fundie Bonk Job will always claim that those lessons don't apply. So, it becomes a matter of picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow or not. And the Fundie can hardly condemn anyone for their choices of which parts of the Bible to follow and which not, since one choice would appear to be as valid as another. Fundies like to have it both ways: that the Bible is a timeless classic filled with unchanging universal and literal truths, and at the same time that it needs to be interpreted so as to be understood and applied to modern times.

And that is how Left Behind starts. Everywhere, hundreds of millions of people vanish, leaving the unbelievers behind, from insufficiently pious Christians to Muslims, Catholics, Jews and everyone else. What follows is the Tribulation, in which God visits unspeakable plagues on the Earth, amid a climactic worldwide battle waged by a band of new believers, called the Tribulation Force, against Satan and the Antichrist. Seas and rivers turn to blood, searing heat burns men alive, ugly boils erupt on the skin of the disfavored, 200 million ghostly, demonic warriors sweep across the planet exterminating one-third of the world's population -- well, you get the idea. And why does a merciful God visit such horrors on mankind? According to LaHaye, "God intends that the terrible plagues and judgments of the Tribulation might cause the people of the world to repent and turn to him."

One wonders...if God is so all-powerful and all-loving, why a demonstration of vengeance and horror as a means to gain converts? Why not a miraculous display of benevolence? Hmm...

Nah, screw it! Boils and rivers of fire are way more fun!

"We have more reason to believe that ours may be the terminal generation than any generation since Jesus founded His church 2,000 years ago," LaHaye told Rolling Stone...

Umm...didn't the writers of the New Testament also make that very same claim? Why, yes they did! And nearly every generation of Fundie Bonk Jobs since has believed that theirs would be the terminal generation.

According to LaHaye, civilization is threatened by a worldwide conspiracy of secret societies and liberal groups intent on destroying "every vestige of Christianity." Among the participants in this conspiracy are the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, "the major TV networks, high-profile newspapers and newsmagazines," the U.S. State Department, major foundations (Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford), the United Nations, "the left wing of the Democratic Party," Harvard, Yale "and 2,000 other colleges and universities." All of this is assembled to "turn America into an amoral, humanist country, ripe for merger into a one-world socialist state."

If there was ever a time when "Fundie Bonk Job" fit the bill, this is absolutely it.

But wait! Didn't Bush, a member of the Fundie Fold, go to both Harvard and Yale? I wonder how old George escaped those bastions of liberalism unscathed and still palettable to LaHaye. I guess that's where the whole not paying attention in class thing helped him.

SUVs Suck

Oh, I SO want a new Mini Cooper now!
Big and Bad is a damn good read.

Toyota's top marketing executive in the United States, Bradsher writes, loves to tell the story of how at a focus group in Los Angeles "an elegant woman in the group said that she needed her full-sized Lexus LX 470 to drive up over the curb and onto lawns to park at large parties in Beverly Hills." One of Ford's senior marketing executives was even blunter: "The only time those S.U.V.s are going to be off-road is when they miss the driveway at 3 a.m."

What an absolutely necessary vehicle! Every moron with zero driving skills and even less common sense should have one!

The truth, underneath all the rationalizations, seemed to be that S.U.V. buyers thought of big, heavy vehicles as safe: they found comfort in being surrounded by so much rubber and steel. To the engineers, of course, that didn't make any sense, either: if consumers really wanted something that was big and heavy and comforting, they ought to buy minivans, since minivans, with their unit-body construction, do much better in accidents than S.U.V.s. (In a thirty-five-m.p.h. crash test, for instance, the driver of a Cadillac Escalade--the G.M. counterpart to the Lincoln Navigator--has a sixteen-per-cent chance of a life-threatening head injury, a twenty-per-cent chance of a life-threatening chest injury, and a thirty-five-per-cent chance of a leg injury. The same numbers in a Ford Windstar minivan--a vehicle engineered from the ground up, as opposed to simply being bolted onto a pickup-truck frame--are, respectively, two per cent, four per cent, and one per cent.)

So...in a nutshell, not only are these behemoth gas-guzzlers deadly to anyone on the road in a vehicle smaller than a Sherman tank, they're more deadly to their passengers as well. Hmm...so much for big and safe!

I'm starting to enjoy this

A pretty extensive look at the plausibility that BushCo is lying about his service:
On Guard - or AWOL?

Ask any Republican who remembers the Clinton impeachment that they'll tell you, "It wasn't about oral sex (yeah, right) -- that's not the issue. The issue is that he lied about it." Likewise, it's not necessarily about Bush skipping out on duties in the ANG, but that he's lying about it. I'd like to see Bush sworn in under oath and asked about his service, that way there'd be no wiggle room along the lines of "well, he wasn't under oath when he lied and you have to lie under oath in order for it to be an impeachable offense".

Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous

Let's not even address the insult to common intelligence that is Scalia's position that he not to recuse himself from Cheney's case (which the SCOTUS will be hearing shortly) on the basis that there is no conflict of interest as a result of Cheney wine-and-dining him. Let's just focus on the last sentence (if you can call it that) of Scalia's statement below. Delve with me, if you will, into Bizarro world.

"It did not involve a lawsuit against Dick Cheney as a private individual," Scalia said of the appeal while speaking at Amherst College last Tuesday. "This was a government issue. It's acceptable practice to socialize with executive branch officials when there are not personal claims against them. That's all I'm going to say for now. Quack, quack." Old MacDonald Had a Judge...

Excuse me? Did a Supreme Court Justice actually quack as part of a public statement? Is this some sort of joke? No, this is the reality that we now know as our government. I think, perhaps, Scalia has lost his mind. Or maybe "quack, quack" is secret Republican code. Maybe it means, "No worries. I got yer back, Dickie".

Honorable Discharge

So, lately, Bush has come under fire for his lackluster performance in the National Guard. I'm not going to rehash the story. Suffice it to say that BushCo's rebuttal to the claims that he went AWOL hinge on his "honorable discharge". Of course, getting an honorable discharge doesn't prove he fulfilled his duties to his full obligation or that he's the military man he'd like us to believe (see carrier landing at the "end" of the Iraq war). The following piece by Bill Gallagher (Serial Liar Bush Finally Gets Caught) explains it best:

"I did my duty. I was honorably discharged!" Bush proclaimed, as though that proves anything. Keep this in mind. Convicted D.C. sniper and serial killer John Muhammad served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1978 to 1985. He was twice court-martialed, once for striking an officer, another time for stealing. He was AWOL and spent time in the jail. Muhammad left the National Guard with an honorable discharge.

Now, I don't want anyone thinking that I'm trying to say Bush is a serial killer. Although, if you think about it... No, the point is: just because he was given an honorable discharge, that doesn't mean he wasn't AWOL.

How Bush Plans to Attack Kerry

Bush Campaign Plans

Already, Republicans are depicting Kerry as a product of Washington, beholden to special interests and out of touch with regular Americans.

"Hello, Kettle? Yeah, this is the Pot." You know how the rest of that conversation goes.

Republican Party chairman Ed Gillespie declared (Kerry)...one of the "most liberal members" of the Senate.

That's not saying much, Congress being the conservative cauldron that it is. Still, the more liberal, the better.

"Politicians get in a lot of trouble when they present themselves as different than who they really are," says Matthew Dowd, the Bush campaign's chief strategist.

I'm thinking back to the 2000 election and wondering, then, why it worked so well for Jr.

They (Republicans) also hope he follows a historic pattern: No sitting member of Congress has been elected president since John Kennedy -- a Massachusetts Democrat -- in 1960.

Meaning what?? That once elected he'll be assassinated?!

A preview of their lines of attack:

●Kerry has left no footprint on Capitol Hill. "What's he done?" asks Mary Matalin, a Bush campaign adviser. "He's been on the Hill forever, and what does he have to show for it?"

Response? First list a few things that Kerry has done in Congress and then list the things that Bush has successfully done: millions of jobs lost, economy in the tank, national deficit and debt at record levels, rolled back environmental protections, whittled away at Civil Rights, melded church and state, proposed initiatives (No Child Left Behind) for which he has proposed no funding, killed thousands of innocent civilians in a war the basis for which was lies, etc, etc, etc.

●He switches positions when it's politically expedient.

Well, when you're wrong...admit it, take corrective action and move on. Better than making a mistake and sticking to it, making things worse. (Are you listening, Bush?) That's not political expediency, it's just good decision making.

●He's a hypocrite on the Vietnam War.

No, he did his duty, served his country and then spoke his conscience about the validity of the war. If it's a hypocrite the Repugs want, they need look no further than their own Coward-in-Chief who, rather than fight and/or speak out against the war if he had a problem with it, hid out in the Sons of Privilege Texas unit of the Air National Guard (and couldn't even complete his commitment to that cushy ride).

●He's a captive of special interests. In speeches, Kerry warns lobbyists, "We're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out."

But Kerry has raised more money from lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years.

Only because Bush was never in the Senate. Head-to-head, dollar-for-special interest dollar no one can hold a candle to Bush.

"Kerry's record of voting for huge tax increases (as opposed to HUGE tax giveaways to the rich that have done more damage to the economy than any tax increase ever has?), opposing a strong defense and undermining our intelligence is out of the mainstream for a majority of voters."

Smear, smear, smear, and spin. Why is it that moderates and conservatives are willing to let slide a politician who votes for tax cuts at the expense of the budget and federal programs just because they use the term "tax cuts" but seem to be so unwilling to give credit to anyone who may raise taxes in order to pay for programs that are beneficial to people...or to pay off the debt. It only tells one part of the story to talk about tax cuts or tax increases. Along with tax cuts must come either program cuts or an increase in defecit spending. Or, in Bush's case (the worst case) an increase in spending along with the tax cuts, resulting in tremendous defecits. Conversely, tax increases aren't necessarily a bad thing if they're used to pay for necessary programs. Also, why does voting against inflating an already over-bloated defense industry constitute "opposing a strong defense"? And, if anyone has undermined intelligence it's BushCo. (Think Valerie Plame, for just one example...think fabricated evidence of Iraqi WMD for another). The same argument about voting against defense spending applies to intelligence if the benefits outweigh the costs. Finally, what is it about sensible spending balanced against sensible programs that is "out of the mainstream for a majority of voters"? By being so close to the super-wealthy and special interests, the Repugs are way more out of touch with a majority of voters.

More mewling from the Christian Reich

To level-headed conservatives, common sense demands...

Bwahahahahaha! I'm sorry, "level-headed conservatives"? And since when does common sense belong in the same sentence with the word "Conservatives".

H.R. 3190 and S. 1558 would exempt lower federal courts from hearing questions on important religious liberty issues: the Ten Commandments, the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance.

What? They want to prohibit the judiciary from hearing religious "liberty" issues? That can't be constitutional.

The Ten Commandments Defense Act, H.R. 2045, would exempt federal courts from hearing cases on the Ten Commandments and the Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2028, would remove federal courts from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Smells like fear, don't it? =) "Uh, we want the courts to, uhh, stop ruling in favor of the, uhh, Constitution and, uhh, let us overrun the country the way God intended", the Sergeant at Arms of the Christian Reich said.

Finally, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, S. 627, is a top priority of ours and many pro-family members of Congress. This bill would curb Internet gambling by prohibiting on-line transactions. A slightly different version of this bill passed the House last year, leaving the Senate to act now. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who sponsors S. 627, has vowed to do what he can to get a vote on his bill this year. There is a powerful casino/gambling lobby working hard to defeat this legislation. As a result, it will take dedication and perseverance from our side to see that the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act passes.

What could the Christian Reich have against online gambling? This is a puzzler. Oh wait, no it's not. The gaming industry is in direct competition with the Reich for the money of its followers and it would appear that the casinos are winning.

Mormon Actress Won't Swear

Religious-rights lawsuit by student actress is back

Christina Axson-Flynn, a member of the LDS Church, refused to take God's name in vain or use the f-word while performing scripted monologues in class. She claimed in a lawsuit that being required to set aside her religious beliefs violated her First Amendment rights, but the allegations were tossed out of district court.

Last time I checked, the First Amendment included no "right to be an actress". Sounds like a change in major is in order. Or perhaps this young lady would find the drama department at Liberty University more to her liking. Wait a minute...she's attending the University of Utah. Why isn't she going to Brigham Young? I'm sure they would never put on any performance that included profanity.

Hey, that reminds me of a joke. What's the difference between LSD and LDS? One you take with a grain of sugar, the other with a grain of salt. =)

Ninth graders obviously more well-spoken that Dumbya

Drop 'Christian' from Constitution?

MONTPELIER -- Vermont's state Constitution says that "every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe Sabbath or Lord's Day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which, to them, will seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God."

Ninth-graders Sylvie Daley and Dosia Sanford from the Twinfield Union School in Marshfield went before the Senate Government Operations Committee on Friday and said it's time to amend the founding document to remove the reference to a specific religion.

The constitutional provision is "anachronistic," Daley said. "We just think it's time to bring it up to date so that it's fair to all religions.

"We're not anti-Christian," she added. "We don't want to get God out of the Constitution. We just want to remove all the references to 'Christian' because Vermont is so much more diverse now."

These are the kinds of kids the Repugs fear most...they're intelligent and well-spoken. Obviously more so than the Dim Son.

I want to hear a member of the White House press corps ask if Bush if he even knows what "anachronistic" means. Of course, he'd probably get lucky and in a fit of anger just yell out, "You're out of order!", at which point the jaws would drop as the press corps mistakenly believed that Bush was actually answering the question rather than just throwing a childish tantrum.

Fundie Bonk Jobs Blur Fact and Fiction

Rise of the Righteous Army

The "Left Behind" sagas begin with a mysterious event: one third of the passengers on a transatlantic flight suddenly disappear, leaving only their clothes behind.

What has happened? It's an event that evangelicals call the Rapture, where every true-believing Christian, and every child under the age of 12, vanishes in an instant to a better place. All others will face the Tribulation.

"It could happen at any moment. It could happen, as we like to say, during this interview. Like that. Bang", says Thomas Ice, who might be called a professor emeritus of the Rapture. He runs the Pre-Tribulation Research Center out of his garage in a Dallas suburb. It's a one-man think-tank funded by LaHaye and dedicated to preparation for the last days on earth.

A "one-man think-tank"? I'm sorry, but one person does not constitute a think tank. I believe the proper term would be "consultant". But what the hell, right? We're already talking about an "expert" on an event which has never happened and for which there is no evidence of a future event. So why not make one man a think tank!

"There is a lot of debate over whether artificial body parts, and contact lenses, and clothes would be "Left Behind" or not. But the body would definitely (my emphasis) be taken", adds Ice.

Definitely, huh? And this certainty would be based on...?

"That's what the Bible teaches. There are gonna be many Southern Baptists, for example, or many Presbyterians, or many Catholics, or people who are a part of Christendom", says Ice. "But if they haven't personally trusted Jesus Christ as their savior, even if they're a lifelong member of a church, you know, then they will be damned."

Mm-hmm. Of course, the Bible also teaches that if a person's faith is strong enough, that person could handle poisonous snakes and not die if bitten. (Mark 16:17-18, Luke 10:19) And we all know how well that's worked out for a number of dead, snake-handling, Christians.

"It's not a minority view, it's not a group of folks that are niched somewhere over there. It's a very mainstream view", says Wagner.

"We're not crazy! Look at how many people believe the same stuff as us! That makes us sane, right?"

"Will they just take the body and leave the clothes? Watches, and rings, and fillings? Will the whole body be taken? I don't know", says McWhinney. "But all I know is that God is in control of it. And I have to accept that and believe it. Or I begin to reject it, then it begins to work on my faith in the wrong direction. It would lead to doubt. Doubt is not even an option."

And there you have it folks. The crux of the whole belief system: "Do not question. Questions lead to doubt and doubt leads to hell." It must be nice to be in a line of work where all you have to say is, "Just trust me...and don't question what I tell you or really, really bad things will happen to you", and people are foolish enough to do as you say.

All four evangelical Christians, however, agree that they feel confident that they won't be "Left Behind".

You don't say!

"I realize that our message is inherently offensive and divisive, especially in this new age of tolerance. Especially since 9/11", says Jenkins. "I understand how that sounds. But I'm telling you this 'cause I really do believe it."

Well...I really do believe that you're a crazy nutjob who's preying on people's fears and manipulating them for profit!

"And so, with the White House, and Tom DeLay, and in the House of Representatives, the attorney general, talk radio, the conservative Fox News, all that sort of thing, these are parts of the righteous army that has finally come into its own."

Damn, it's frightening to actually see that printed.

How is Mr. Bush different from Jimmy Carter, who is a born-again Christian?

“When Jimmy Carter began to support abortion or other things, then that became a jarring inconsistency for many of these voters,” says Bauer. “With the president, what he says he believes as a matter of faith also seems to be reflected in many of the policies in his plan to distribute social services through religious institutions.”

Other examples include his rejection on gay marriage, his stand on stem cell research – views that fit perfectly into the agenda of the most powerful bloc in the Republican party.

Hey, Mr. Journalist, Mr. Softball-Question-Lobber, ask him about how the pResident's (supposedly) compassionate Christian lifestyle aligns with his war in Iraq. Ask him about the dead innocent children he's killed that he's supposed to care so much for as a Christian. Ask him why, if he follows a loving and compassionate religion such as Christianity, he feels the need to overinflate the military industry at the expense of healthcare and quality of life for those in this country who need it the most and can afford it the least! Ask him whether the pResident is a filthy liar or a goddamn hypocrite!

For evangelicals, the war in Iraq is seen not merely as a war against terror.

Last year, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a deputy undersecretary of defense, and an evangelical, made headlines when he publicly described the war on terror as a religious mission. Of one Muslim warlord, he said, "My God is bigger than his. My God is a real God."

"My invisible friend can totally kick your invisible friend's ass. And by the way, your invisible friend is fake!"

A lot of people are uncomfortable with the Bush administration, and its cozy relationship with church and state. But Bauer disagrees.

"I don't see it. I don't know why they're uncomfortable. Nobody in America is being told how to worship", says Bauer.

There's a subtle, but telling, distinction between what Bauer said there and what the Constitution says. Bauer said that people are free to worship how they want. The implication being "...so long as they worship". What the constitution says is that people should also be free not to worship. Not only just not to worship, but not to be forced into funding anyone else's particular religious view. Which is exactly what school vouchers, for example, do. That particular policy forces tax-payers to subsidize the religious teaching of other people's children.

Interview with Jerry Falwell re: Evolution

FALWELL: You know, Heidi, the battle we've been fighting for all of these years as creationists is academic freedom.

"Academic freedom", eh? Is that what we're supposed to call it when some hack wants to pretend that a myth is reality and that said myth is worthy of scientific validation? Mr. Falwell is certainly free to teach whatever hairbrained nonsense he likes over at Bonkjob --er, "Liberty" -- University, but if he thinks that equal time should be given to his fairy tales in science class, he's got another thing coming. The Christian Creation myth belongs in a social studies course along with Greek mythology, Norse mythology, etc.

Young people, when they hear the facts on both sides, or what are proposed to be facts, overwhelmingly, like 80 percent of the American people, accept and adopt creationism.

And that, somehow, makes it true? This is reality we're talking about...it's not a majority rules situation. It is what it is whether a majority like it or not. A majority once thought that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the Earth. The fact that they were a majority didn't make them any less wrong.

My hero on dangerous boobs

Because the whole thing bears plagiarising. Only not quite. Maybe just repeating, given how I'm giving credit where credit is due. Morford is God.

Curse Words for Janet Jackson (Click the link for deliciously naughty pictures...okay maybe not so naughty...artful expressions of nipple euphoria)

Daddy, why does that f--ing politician hate women's breasts? Because he's a s-- and a hypocrite, honey
(By Mark Morford)



Jaws were clenched. Brows were furrowed. Scowls were scowled. Fake sanctimony was hissed. Pasty cellulitic butts were scrunched. This is what happened.

Just last week, well before Janet Jackson reignited her limp career in the most nipple-riffic PR stunt in months, uptight members of Congress from all corners squeezed their narrow ideologies into little fiery balls and decided to berate, as they so often do, radio and TV for being "vile, crude, disgusting, and awful," yo hey pot kettle black. And, lo, lightning did not strike them dead on the spot.

Why the outburst? Because Bono said the delicious f-word during the Golden Globes, and it wasn't edited out. Because a few of the country's crude 'n' obnoxious Clear Channel shock-radio stations you would never listen to because you have taste and a brain aired one of those vapid sexist gag radio bits that appeal only to semicatatonic homophobic frat boys.

Oh, and because S.F.'s own KRON-TV dared to accidentally flash a shot of a real penis during a segment about the very much not-all-that-funny "Puppetry of the Penis" theater show. Shocking. Appalling. Honey cover your eyes.

And thus did the sanctimonious pseudo-Christian cry go out, powerful and time tested by politicians worldwide, guaranteed to induce fear and ignorance and allow them to paint themselves as all self-righteous and ethical and pretend they're not a corporate shill raping the environment from the back pocket of an oil lobbyist: Who -- pray, who -- will protect the children?

So the politicians, they hissed, they derided, they wrapped themselves in cloaks of hypocrisy and righteousness and proposed a bill to quintuple the Federal Communication Commission's powers to punish "crude, vile" media violators -- i.e., anyone who broadcasts certain "forbidden" swear words or exposes genitalia or offers up crude schlock-radio pap, as if these are the true demons of society, the true leeches sucking the souls of the virtuous and the young. Wrong again, pols.

Which leads us, naturally, straight to Janet Jackson's nipple. To the instantly infamous fully intentional breast-exposing PR stunt wherein Justin Timberlake "accidentally" ripped off one of Janet's breast plates, exposing one actually quite cool silver sunburst nipple shield, just before a panicky NBC cut to a much more morally virtuous Pepsi commercial.

Once again, America was shocked and appalled. Families were horrified. Civilizations trembled. Churches crumbled. Eighty-nine million viewers gasped and made the sign of the cross and realized just how desperate Janet's career must've been that she had to try to pull that one off. So to speak.

And oh yes, children were traumatized, too. Deeply scarred. Forever and ever. So very sad.

Because children are always traumatized by such events, aren't they? The wee ones simply can't handle sex and nudity and swearing and it's a wonder the damn little things can get out of bed in the morning, what with all the f-words and exposed nipples and penises flopping around out there. Right, senator? The poor dears. Thank god for Spongebob.

So outraged was the populace that Michael Powell, sanctimonious head of the FCC, he of the flagrant corporate whoring who recently tried to cram through new rules that would've allowed a handful of media giants to own almost every media outlet in the nation, is actually launching a probe into the Janet episode. How cute.

This is the message: A woman's bare breast is a horrific and disturbing thing, completely inappropriate for an afternoon of wholesome macho homoerotic skull-bashing NFL violence and endless hours of nauseating commercial crassness -- unless the woman is, you know, a cheerleader. Now rush off to bed kids, and read your Bibles while Mommy and Daddy pop some Zoloft and Levitra and crack a few Bud Lights and head off to the fetish dungeon to lick our new Ford GT. Got it.

Yes, a woman's flesh is unspeakable evil. However, umpteen erectile-dysfunction commercials and crotch-biting pisswater Bud Light commercials and toxic-junk-food commercials and faux-macho truck commercials and the ad featuring two old people beating each other up over a bag of greasy potato chips, why, that's just tasteful, healthy capitalism. Is that it, Mike? Politicians? Just want to be clear.

Because there is no outcry. There are no snide FCC honchos or uptight politicians hurling the terms "vile," "disgusting" and "crude" at the true poisons of the culture, like those above -- not to mention politicians' own oil cronyism or easy lies about war, or the decimation of our foreign policy. You want to talk vile and disgusting, senator? Have you seen the new BushCo budget?

Most telling side note: Bono, of U2, was barred from performing a song about AIDS awareness at the Super Bowl because he is "too political," given how he fights for those horrible un-American causes of peace and Third World debt relief.

But pseudo-gangsta P. Diddy can pimp like a talentless thug and Kid Rock can, well, be Kid Rock and NFL players can kneel in smarmy bogus prayer rituals, praying fervently to crush the other team's vertebrae and win a shiny trophy. My God but we are so beautifully, deeply screwed.

Mind, this is no impassioned defense of vulgar radio or tacky overblown halftime stunts, which are, by American tradition, inane and insulting on 157 levels. After all, a nation gets exactly the type of schlock entertainment it deserves. And, as for the children, well, if you let your 5-year-old listen to Howard Stern, you get exactly the kind of kid you deserve, too.

But in the final analysis, which is more harmful to your innocent unsoiled perfect child? Hearing Bono say "this is really fucking brilliant" during the Golden Globes and ogling Janet Jackson's PR-happy breast for all of 1.7 seconds, or the endless stream of blood-soaked images of BushCo's bogus war machine interspersed with never-ending commercials featuring misogyny, bestiality, cheap beer and toxic sodas, along with arrays of pneumatic bleached-toothed cheerleaders doing the splits while sweaty 300-pound men in tights pulverize each other like gorillas on meth?

Verily, congressman, and truly, Mr. Powell, why are you not out there screaming and clenching your fists and protecting our innocent children from the endless array of sociocultural lies and abuses and corporate whorings you yourselves support and help perpetuate?

Why are you not, in short, ranting about the need to protect our children from the likes of, well, you?

Fantastic line!

Devious Dubya's Dismal Dillema

If George W. Bush weren’t such an arrogant horse’s ass, you could almost feel sorry for him.

Almost.

I love to see lines like that printed. Bound to be a classic!

Just had to add the following, as well (from the same piece):

David Keene, leader of the ultra-right American Conservative Union, started emailing his members, saying Dubya had sold out the principles of the Republican Party, which is a laugher because such a statement assumes the party had principles to begin with.

Scalia in bed with Cheney and Big Oil

Looks like the Repugs need to sign a "Code of Ethics"...

PATTERSON, La. — Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia traveled as an official guest of Vice President Dick Cheney on a small government jet that served as Air Force Two when the pair came here last month to hunt ducks.

For more on their "hunt", see this article.

The revelation cast further doubts about whether Scalia can be an impartial judge in Cheney's upcoming case before the Supreme Court, legal ethics experts said. The hunting trip took place just weeks after the high court agreed to take up Cheney's bid to keep secret the details of his energy policy task force. According to those who met them at the small airstrip here, the justice and the vice president flew from Washington on Jan. 5 and were accompanied by a second, backup Air Force jet that carried staff and security aides to the vice president.

Two military Black Hawk helicopters were brought in and hovered nearby as Cheney and Scalia were whisked away in a heavily guarded motorcade to a secluded, private hunting camp owned by an oil industry businessman.

Judas Priest! The picture couldn't be any clearer if Cheney, Scalia, and their oil industry business friend were caught together in bed at a cheap motel!

When asked about the trip last month, Scalia confirmed that he had gone duck hunting with Cheney, but said he did not see a need to withdraw from the case.

Scalia was also quoted as saying he "couldn't see the forest for the trees, couldn't tell shit from shinola, and couldn't find his ass with both hands".

Two years ago, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch sued Cheney, seeking to learn whether the vice president and his staff had met behind closed doors with lobbyists and corporate officials from the oil, gas, coal and electric power industries.

A judge ordered Cheney to turn over documents detailing who met with his energy task force. Cheney appealed, and in September, Bush administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to hear the case and reverse the judge's order.

And now, not only is Cheney courting Scalia, but so is big oil. Is it a coincidence that the duck hunting property is owned by an oil industry businessman? Yeah, right.

"This is certainly a level of hospitality that most litigants are not able to extend to Supreme Court justices," he said. "It also reinforces the perception this was an exceptional event, not a run-of-the-mill social event or a White House dinner."

Can you imagine if Michael Newdow had taken a Supreme Court Justice on an all-expense paid trip aboard a private jet? The Right would have a lynch mob organized.

Bush appearing to be on his heels

It looks like the Dem candidates are doing a good job of hammering away at Bush and the media is finally starting to take notice. Of course, few of them actually dig into anything...they're still mostly just parroting what the politicos are saying.

Bush's performance as commander-in-chief under scrutiny

On Sunday, aides confirmed that Bush would appoint a special commission to investigate intelligence failures in Iraq and elsewhere. The president, who had resisted the idea of an outside investigation, decided to name his own panel in the face of pressure for an independent inquiry.

Naming his own panel is hardly an independent inquiry. I'd say the pressure should still be on.

He also backtracked from his previous insistence on adhering to a strict May 27 deadline for a separate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. Faced with the possibility that Congress would force his hand, Bush agreed Wednesday to give that commission another 60 days to complete its work, pushing the deadline closer to the November election.

That's great news! Now the commission should issue subpoenas for Cheney and Smirky and put their asses on the stand, under oath!

Bush spent most of the year (of 1972) in Alabama working on a political campaign, but there's no record that he ever reported to his assigned unit with the Alabama National Guard.

That's not how I remember hearing the story. If I remember correctly, Bush Jr. requested a transfer from his Texas unit to the Alabama unit so that he could be closer to the campaign he was interested in working with. But when he was refused the transfer, he left his Texas unit anyway. He never reported to his assigned unit with the Texas National Guard during that time.

Bush accused of undermining investigation

But Mr Bush was unapologetic yesterday. "We do know that Saddam Hussein had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm," he said. "We know he was a danger. And he was not only a danger to people in the free world, he was a danger to his own people. He slaughtered thousands of people, imprisoned people."

Yes, but there are hundreds of other despots around the globe who fit the bill as well, but we're not starting wars over them, now are we. And why not? Because it's not worth it. Just like it wasn't worth it to go to war against Iraq. Also, didn't we just hear Condi Rice say this same thing, almost word for word, last week?

(Bush) told reporters, he favoured a sweeping investigation into the failings of US intelligence agencies on the entire issue of nuclear proliferation, from Iraq to North Korea, Iran and Libya, and as far back in time as the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998, which the CIA failed to anticipate.

So, he intends to bury his failures leading up to 9/11 by attempting to distract everyone with anything even remotely related to intelligence failures. Hell, why not demand an investigation into the intelligence failures which led to our being attacked, defenseless, in Pearl Harbor half a century ago. That's the real issue here!

"We also want to look at our war against proliferation and weapons of mass destruction, kind of in a broader context," he said.

How about starting with having a look a your own proliferation policies, Mr. Bush? I seem to recall you pissing all over treaties outlining anti-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Mini-nukes were what you called them, I think. Low-yield precision nuclear (now there's an oxy-moron: a precise nuclear explosion) weapons. Oh, you meant the war against other people's nuclear proliferation. Oh, okay.

The scale of those ambitions has caused widespread dismay, and led to accusations that the White House had set tasks for the commission so broad as to be unworkable. "This should be an inquiry focused on the intelligence failure to understand what went wrong and how precisely to fix it. The president's proposal tries to bury that as simply an element in a broader effort," said Joseph Cirincione, director of the non-proliferation project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Hey, that's what I said! Okay, maybe not quite so eloquently. But still...can I have a job at CEI, now? Pretty please? Wait, this would be a well-paying job, yes?

Mr Cheney's reported involvement in the formation of the commission has already been the subject of concern. The commission is not expected to report until mid-2005 preventing any political fallout from the inquiry during this election year.

The Boy pResident has nothing to worry about. Oily Uncle Dick has everything under control. The commission will not issue any findings until after the Dim Son is re-installed and it'll never find anyone in the maladministration guilty of anything.

Election Year Politics and the Budget

Playing with our money

The president's budget does not include any funding for military operations and reconstruction in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond September 30. The administration used the same gimmick last year, then requested $87 billion in additional funds. It has already been reported that the administration plans on requesting at least $50 billion in additional spending for Iraq and Afghanistan—but only after the November elections.

And BushCo accuses the 9/11 panel of playing political games! Ha!

Dangerous Boobs

No, I'm not talking about the dangerous boob currently squatting in the White House. I'm talking about Janet's boob, as seen on the Superbowl half-time show. And so is the Christian Reich. They're falling all over themselves to condemn this most heinous travesty of decency: bare breasts. Apparently the scourge of civilized society. So the Reich Wing is screeching, and the broadcasters are back-peddling and apologizing. All over a bare breast.

Is this really worth all the concern? Is this really a problem? Children are inundated with images of blood and gore and violence (and that's just the NFL) and concerned Christians everywhere see nudity as the problem? Please. How about less fear mongering on the nightly news. How about less global bloodletting by the mighty U.S. military. How about more tasteful nudity. Don't you think we'd be better off, as a society, if we were more comfortable with our bodies, and less comfortable with war and fear and anger and hatred?