Not even funny

Even worse than the joke of a pResidency that this has been is the "joke" the fGoT tried to pull off at the Correspondent's Dinner.

"Ha-ha, people died for my ineptitude! Ha-ha, people died for my arrogance! Ha-ha, people died because I don't give a rat's ass for anyone but myself and anyone rich enough to offer me more wealth!"

From The Comedic Styling of George W. Bush.

I must admit, the times George W. Bush has made me laugh, I was laughing at him, not with him. I try to make it a habit to hit Slate.com to read the latest Bushism, as collected by Jacob Weisberg. A Bushism is something said by our President where he makes a verbal gaffe while speaking extemporaneously. You see, Bush is a great speaker when the lines are provided for him. On his own, he says things like "Now there are some who would like to rewrite history - revisionist historians is what I like to call them." (Said in Elizabeth, New Jersey on June 16, 2003). See? That's funny.

At last week's Radio and Television Correspondent's dinner, Bush delivered a self-deprecating speech which provided many laughs to the Beltway crowd.

The Correspondent's dinner is a big deal in Washington, and some of the featured speakers have been comedian Al Franken and radio personality Don Imus. Usually the President delivers humorous remarks as well. A classic example of this is the 2000 Correspondent's dinner, where the Bill Clinton "final days" video was played. In the video, a bored Clinton wanders the halls of the White House, alone, doing things like answering the White House telephone, mowing the yard, and hooking up with a Gen-X staffer who teaches Clinton how to "surf the 'net." It was very funny, and Clinton was a great sport to poke fun at himself.



At last week's affair, George W. Bush had the opportunity as well to poke fun at himself. His presentation was a slide show as Bush delivered funny quips, a "year in review" theme. At one point in the slide show, a slide is shown of Bush looking under furniture. And Bush delivered the line:

"Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."

Incredibly, there were two more slides of Bush searching his office. "Nope, no weapons over there. Maybe over here."

The next day, in Iraq, three soldiers were killed. Bringing the total to nearly 600 of our troops killed, sent to Iraq to hunt for non-existent weapons of mass destruction.

That Bush could make a joke of Operation Iraqi Freedom boggles the mind. He's effectively spitting on the graves of those brave men and women, sent into harms way on a snipe hunt. In addition to the war dead, several thousand have been injured. Many of these soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are recuperating at Walter Reed hospital. Lots are now disabled for life, injured in a hunt for weapons that are not anywhere to be found.

I wonder how "funny" those men and women found it when their leg was blown off, or their arm. But Bush, safe at the White House, can make a joke of the conflict in Iraq.

What the hell was Bush thinking? He had to approve the script. I've tried to imagine the exchange that may have taken place between the scriptwriter and Bush.

"Sir, I've got an idea - it's pretty risky, but I think the crowd will love it."

"Okay, shoot."

"How about we get some shots of you looking around your office - you know, under the desk, maybe, and you can say 'Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere.' What do you think?"

"Hilarious! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time! Good job!"

Not surprisingly, right-wingers have said nothing about Bush's arrogant, disgusting remarks. Imagine if it had been Bill Clinton, speaking of the bombing at the Federal building in Oklahoma City. What if Clinton had said, "You know, I had no idea fertilizer had so many uses!" or "Finally, we've put Oklahoma City on the map." Republicans would have had collective heart attacks, and surely would have demanded Clinton's resignation.

Even now, Bush has not apologized for his remarks. It's doubtful he will. To Bush, the nearly-600 dead soldiers in Iraq are merely the punch line to a stupid joke. Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie dismissed the criticism. "The Democrats will go after anything," he told ABC news. "The fact is that this is the custom in these things. Presidents have made jokes about very serious matters at these dinners. You can hear the laughter, the people in the room obviously saw the humor in it at that moment, and to play it back now in a different context is unfair."

A different context? Unfair? Remember, now, this is the political party that considers itself pro-military. It's also the political party that finds the death of U.S. soldiers funny.

I'm not laughing.

And neither should anyone else.

Scary "Election" Stuff

It may not matter if 99% of voters vote to oust Bush. Could be Florida in 2000 all over again, only more insidious.

How E-voting threatens democracy

Diebold, Electronic Voting and the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

A paper ballot, a newspaper, and a Polaroid camera

Pyschic grounds flight

Where officials will now ground a flight based on...absolutely nothing.

Psychic claims to have vision

"But in these times, we can't ignore anything. We want to take the appropriate measures," he said.

So, now, every time an anonymous person calls in a tip that they had a vision of a bomb on board a flight, the flight will be held? Sounds like crippling the US air travel system is easier than any terrorist could've imagined.

That's one way to treat all couples equally

Well, here's an interesting twist: County bans all marriages.

Of course, churches should still be allowed to perform religious marriage ceremonies, but they won't have any legal bearing until a civic license is issued and signed -- as it should be. The religious sacrament of marriage should be wholly separate from the civil contract of marriage. Neither should impinge on or enhance the other.

Pledge Case Exerpts

Exerpts

JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS: Do you think that the pledge has the same meaning today as when it was enacted - when the words, under God, were inserted into the prayer, into the pledge?

MR. OLSON: It's an important question because the reference to under God in the pledge, as numerous decisions of this court have indicated in dicta, what as a part of a thought process of coming about to the conclusion that it is an acknowledgment of the religious basis of the framers of the Constitution, who believed not only that the right to revolt, but that the right to vest power in the people to create a government became, came as a result of religious principles. In that sense, the Pledge of Allegiance is today, that has that same significance to this country as it did in 1954 when it was amended.

But as this court has also said, and that's the other part of my answer to your question, this court has also said the ceremonial rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance in context repeatedly over the years has caused -- would cause a reasonable observer familiar -- as this Court's First Amendment Establishment Clause jurisdiction points out -- would cause a reasonable observer to understand that that is -- this is not a religious invocation. It is not like a prayer, it is not a supplication, it's not an invocation. It is --

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: Your argument is that there's a stronger case now than there would have been 50 years ago?

Which, translated from polite supreme court justice speak into plain English means, "You're rambling and incoherent, you dunderhead. Could you please just make an argument?"

MR. OLSON: Yes, Justice Ginsburg, and that is for many reasons, for -- because of the reason that I just made...

There was reason in there? I must've missed it.

MR. NEWDOW: Well, I'm not sure this isn't a prayer, and I'm -- I am sure that the Establishment Clause does not require prayer. President Bush, and this is in the Americans United brief, stated himself that when we ask our citizens to pledge allegiance to one nation under God, they are asked to participate in an important American tradition of humbly seeking the wisdom and blessing --

JUSTICE O'CONNOR: Yeah, but I suppose reasonable people could look at the pledge as not constituting a prayer.

MR. NEWDOW: Well, President Bush said it does constitute a prayer.

CHIEF JUSTICE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST: Well, but he -- we certainly don't take him as the final authority on this.

(Laughter.)

Penny for your thoughts, Mr. Rehnquist? I'd bet dollars to donuts he was thinking, "Well, but he -- that intellectual dwarf can hardly be considered a reasonable person."

...JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: What do you make of this argument? I will assume that if you read the pledge carefully, the reference to under God means something more than a mere description of how somebody else once thought. We're pledging allegiance to the flag and to the republic. The republic is then described as being under God, and I think a fair reading of that would -- would be I think that's the way the republic ought to be conceived, as under God. So I think -- I think there's some affirmation there. I will grant you that.

Finally! Someone on the court acknowledging that "under God" is a governmental affirmation of the existence of God -- which Atheists do not believe. So, by nature, a federal affirmation of the existence of any god is exclusionary to Atheists. It is, in essence, an argument that Atheists are not part of this nation. But, maybe the Constitution doesn't guarantee us the right to feel as though we aren't being excluded. But I would argue that the Constitution does intend to include us. Then again, this case appears to be about nit-pick things like whether or not Newdow can even argue the case based on his not being the primary guardian of the child. I think that ought to be irrelevent. I don't have any kids, and the pledge offends me. Do I have less standing on the issue because I have no children in public school? I shouldn't. Especially if the issue is whether or not the phrase "under God" in the pledge is Constitutional. If the issue is whether or not the pledge should be recited in school, then I'm sure there's some legal statute which grants only parents of children in public schools with standing on the issue.

What do you make of the argument that in actual practice the affirmation in the midst of this civic exercise as a religious affirmation is so tepid, so diluted then so far, let's say, from a compulsory prayer that in fact it should be, in effect, beneath the constitutional radar. It's sometimes, you know the phrase, the Rostow phrase, the ceremonial deism.

What do you make of that argument, even assuming that, as I do, that there is some affirmation involved when the child says this as a technical matter?

MR. NEWDOW: I think that that whole concept goes completely against the ideals underlying the Establishment Clause. We saw in Minersville v. Gobitis and West Virginia v. Barnette something that most people don't consider to be religious at all to be of essential religious value to those Jehovah's Witnesses who objected. And for the Government to come in and say, we've decided for you this is inconsequential or unimportant is an arrogant pretension, said James Madison. He said in his memorial --

JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, I think the argument is not that the Government is saying, we are defining this as inconsequential for you. I think the argument is that simply the way we live and think and work in schools and in civic society in which the pledge is made, that the -- that whatever is distinctively religious as an affirmation is simply lost. It -- it's not that the -- that the Government is saying, you've got to pretend that it's lost. The argument is that it is lost, that the religious, as distinct from a civic content, is close to disappearing here.

I can't believe a Justice of the Supreme Court is actually arguing that words have no meaning. Or even that two words in the context of the pledge have no meaning. It isn't a far leap, from that argument, to say that if those two words have no meaning because of their rote repetition, that all words repeated often enough, for long enough have no meaning. Then what is the point of words? And shouldn't Christians everywhere be outraged by the court deciding for them that the words "under God" have no meaning? To Christians, the words have significant meaning. The point is that no one, especially the government, can say "these words do or don't have meaning for you or anyone else".

...JUSTICE BREYER: So it's not perfect, it's not perfect, but it serves a purpose of unification at the price of offending a small number of people like you. So tell me from ground one why -- why the country cannot do that?

Well if that doesn't fly right in the face of the whole intent of setting up the government of this country the way it was, I don't know what is. The constitution isn't there to protect the views of the masses at the expense of "a small number of people", it's there to protect that small number of people from the imposition of the masses. I can't believe a SC Justice would say such a thing!

MR. NEWDOW: Well, first of all, for 62 years this pledge did serve the purpose of unification and it did do it perfectly. It didn't include some religious dogma that separated out some -- Again, the Pledge of Allegiance did absolutely fine and with -- got us through two world wars, got us through the Depression, got us through everything without God, and Congress stuck God in there for that particular reason, and the idea that it's not divisive I think is somewhat, you know,

idiotic?

shown to be questionable at least by what happened in the result of the Ninth Circuit's opinion. The country went berserk because people were so upset that God was going to be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Do we know -- do we know what the vote was in Congress apropos of divisiveness to adopt the under God phrase?

MR. NEWDOW: In 1954?

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Yes.

MR. NEWDOW: It was apparently unanimous. There was no objection. There's no count of the vote.

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: Well, that doesn't sound divisive.

(Laughter.)

MR. NEWDOW: That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office.

(Applause.)

CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST: The courtroom will be cleared if there's any more clapping. Proceed, Mr. Newdow.

In other words, "I am the Almighty Chief Justice! You may laugh at my jokes, but you may NOT applaud anyone with a viewpoint different from mine!

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, now, it -- it -- let's suppose, I thought the case turned on whether this was a religious exercise.

Seriously? He doesn't see "under God" as being religious? How do these people get to such a high position in the court system??

MR. NEWDOW: I think it definitely is, and it is because the two words are, under God, and I can't see of anything that's not religious, under God...

...It fails the endorsement test, it fails the outsider test. Imagine you're this one child with a class full of theists and you have this idea that you want to perhaps at least consider and you have everyone imposing their view on you, it fails every test this Court has ever come up with, and there's a principle here and I'm hoping the Court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. Newdow.

TERENCE J. CASSIDY, LAWYER FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT:

The Pledge of Allegiance in grammar schools, in public schools, is part of a teaching program, and that's what we're here about, to talk about the educational upbringing of a child, and it has to do with national unity and citizenship of our young students.

That's the problem: it's them (Theists) wanting to indoctrinate everyone according to their beliefs. The fact is that removing a religious phrase from, what should be, a religion neutral pledge won't affect the "national unity and citizenship of our young students" in a society governed by secular laws.

On Religious Totalitarianism

When politicians police morals, bad things result

A smattering of indecency is preferable to the tyranny of repression.

Amen!

Attorney General John Ashcroft seems to disagree. He weighed in two years ago when he covered the partial nudity of admired Art Deco statues of Justice and Law in a Justice Department building.

The symbolism of an attorney general covering up Justice and Law is not encouraging.

I doubt most Neo-cons, Asskkkroft included, are intelligent enough to pick up on the irony of the act.

A striking resemblance

Ladies and Gentlemen...I give you, the spectacularly inept former Governor of Texas.

Political Ploys

We're too smart to fall for moralizing during election time, aren't we? (Please say yes, please say yes, please say yes). Let's hold the morally self-righteous politicians to account for their record, not their moral wailings, and then we'll likely see some progress in this country. Because while the Conservatives are puling on about how morally right they are when it comes to abortion, gay marriage, public displays of religion (regardless of how wrong they may actually be), they're robbing us blind and giving it all away to corp-whore-rations.

Politicians should stick to affairs of state

Pledge Stuff

How to untangle the religious from the patriotic

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the words "under God" must be omitted from the recitation of the pledge in public schools. As a legal matter, the required outcome is plain: A principled application of constitutional law calls for the words to be stricken. As a political matter, however, the case is more complex: It pairs patriotism with religious faith, matters that inflame passions when they arise in isolation and are downright incendiary when they coalesce. But it is precisely because the pledge pairs religion and politics that the phrase must be removed.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Legally, the words have to go...especially if the pledge is to be recited in public schools. It's the politicization of the issue which has convoluted it. Let's hope the SCOTUS can see through the haze and rule in favor of the Constitution.

If the federal courts cannot be counted on to rest their rulings on principle -- rather than politics -- they add nothing to our constitutional order that is not already provided by the representative branches of government.

Bingo! Exactly! And yet, this is exactly what the Conservative Reich is trying to do in pushing legislation which would allow Congress to veto high court rulings.

Man blames demons for molestation ...where a man who molested his two stepdaughters uses Christian theology to try to sidestep having to accept responsiblity for his actions. I'm so glad we have philosophies in the world that teach people that they aren't responsible for their own actions.

"I think (Cameron Upshaw) came forward and took responsibility for his actions, and the verdict reflected that," Heath said.

No he didn't. The chickenshit fuck blamed it on "demons". He should've admitted he was sick, accepted his punishment and seeked professional help while in prison. How easy it is for some believers in the Christian theology to shirk their personal responsibility with a lame, "the devil made me do it".

Conservatives with Shit for Brains

Count the Cliches

Yes, for these “thinkers” everything is endlessly open to question and to change. Everything is permitted. Nothing is to be banned and literally nothing is bizarre. They envision for modern America a moral climate similar to ancient Rome – just before it fell!

How convenient it is for Christians to imply that the fall of Rome was a result of hedonistic indulgences (obviously the result of secular influences on society). How convenient that they leave out the fact that Rome fell under Christianity's watch. Rome was a Christian empire at the time of its demise. So, how is it that the fall of Rome is never blamed on Christianity? Besides, Rome's collapse seems, to me, to have more to do with Rome having over-extended itself (geographically, politically, financially) and less to do with any supe

Wonks want to impeach anyone not rabidly right wing

Impeach Judges?

Michael Schwartz of Concerned Women for America, said...

I'll give you one guess as to what's wrong with how that sentence is starting.

Okay, time's up. It's a MAN, baby! What the hell is a man doing as a spokesperson for a woman's activist group? Oh, that's right. CWA isn't a women's activist group, it's a Reich Wing front. That's why there's a man leading/speaking for it.

Schwartz works closely with legislators on Capitol Hill, lobbying to "de-throne" judges, on both the federal and U.S. Supreme Courts, who show a pattern of overstepping their bounds.

In other words, the ones who don't promote a radical Christian Reich agenda.

The Constitution says impeachment is reserved for public officials who "commit treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors,"...

...like the fGoT and Dick Cheney.

Schwartz thinks liberal activism should account for something. "I think that tearing up the constitution," he says, "and showing contempt for the liberties of the people, is certainly justification for removing these characters from any position of public responsibility."

It's funny to hear a conservative wonk say that, because I know that he's talking about some judge who's rendered a decision anywhere to the left of far right, but it really sounds like he's describing his Fuhrer and his Fuhrer's cabinet. Patriot Act, anyone?

Man gets 7 years for sex abuse

Bruce A. Hafner, 41, pleaded guilty in December to four counts of aggravated criminal sexual abuse against four boys, all of whom were 9 when the abuse occurred in 2001 and 2002.

Hafner, who now lives in Farmington, Mo., apologized in court Wednesday to his victims and their parents, promising that he would never abuse a child again. He said he had focused his attention on his wife and their three children since his arrest in August 2002.

"No longer will I abuse children that aren't mine. I'm now fully focused on abusing my wife and my own children", he probably went on to think quietly to himself.

Hafner also suggested that the victims and their families look to Jesus for help in healing.

In other words, "I fucked 'em up, let Jeebus fix 'em".

"I just want to let you know that I truly regret what happened," he said in a short statement to Circuit Judge Ann E. Callis. "I've gone through a lot of treatment. I have a lot of guilt and shame for these kids."

Awww, in't that sweet. He feels bad. Of course, the boys he molested will likely be scarred for life and have difficulty, if at all able, with relationships, but just so long as the poor child molester feels guilty, that's what counts.

"You can't turn to God and use him as a cover for all you've done," Napp said. "This man had the Ten Commandments on his lawn, and the whole time he was inside his house molesting little boys."

D'oh!

Well, technically, I guess the Big 10 don't specifically say anything about not molesting little boys, so...

Stats on faith?

The next great awakening?

about 40 percent of Americans today say they have attended services at a house of worship in the last week. But when that figure is compared with the actual attendance rates reported by denominations, pollsters believe, about half of the folks who say they went to church or synagogue were lying.

Either that or the pollsters inflated their numbers to make the country appear more religious than it really is and now they're lying by claiming that those who were polled lied. Or...this is just proof of the statistical insignificance of the poll. Perhaps 40% of those polled really did attend services in the last week. That doesn't mean that 40% of Americans did. Especially if the pollsters did a shitty job of assembling a random sample.

FOLLOWING FAITH IN AMERICA


92

PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS OWN A BIBLE

What the hell does that have to do with faith in America? I own several Bibles and I'm an atheist.

59

percent say they read it at least occasionally


37

percent say they read it at least once a week

Again...so?? I read Bible passages occasionally and I have no faith.

75 - PERCENT OF AMERICANS SAY THEY ARE CHRISTIAN, BUT . . .


50 - percent of adults interviewed nationwide could name any of the four Gospels of the New Testament


37 - percent could name all four Gospels

42 - percent could list as many as five of the Ten Commandments correctly


12 - percent believe Noah's wife was Joan of Arc

Of course, that last one doesn't really have much bearing on the intelligence of Christians. Seeing as how it's only 12% of the population, they could've all been non-Christians (75% say they're Christians, which leaves 25%..that 12% could fall in there, but it probably doesn't -- completely).

A farce?

Please, oh please, let this be satire. It very well could be real. I mean, it is Utah, after all.

Bush Mixing Church and State: As always

Bush: I'm God's Delivery Boy

Viewing himself as the Great Liberator, (the fGoT) said, "By our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, more than 50 million people have been liberated from tyranny."

...notice that Bush did not count the casualties of the Iraq War or the Afghan War. Everyone there was liberated, according to his speech, even the dead.

Death is a form of liberation -- perhaps the highest form -- just ask AG Asskkkroft.

Google Bomb

Go to Google and type in "miserable failure". Notice the first link. The Google Bomb was successful. Then read this for interesting commentary on the fGoT's resume.

Will They Stop at Nothing?

Every day, something happens and I don't think it can get any worse…and then it gets worse.

Bill would allow Congress to veto SCOTUS

Nothing like trying to (further!) upset the balance of power. It's not bad enough that the fGoT rams through his Reich Wing idealogue judges while Congress is out, but now the Repugs want to be able to render the highest court in the land completely powerless.

The Issue Boiled Down

Letter re: flawed arguments against gay marriage

The idea that a societal institution can be weakened by recognizing the right of a broader section of society to participate in it is patently absurd. Was the institution of suffrage weakened by extending it to non-landowners, to non-whites, to women?

And there it is, put as bluntly and clearly as possible.

Create-an-anchor

Bush administration shills pose as journalists for bogus TV news segments...where, apparently, if you can't trust the media to sing praises of BushCo and his policies, you make media personalities up! Apparently it's getting too damned expensive to buy a loyal media. Then again, with a campaign war chest of hundreds of millions of dollars available, I wouldn't think that anyone would be too expensive.

Bush Panders, Bumbles. Author Contemplates Childish Prank

Bush Assures Evangelicals that he's Still Committed to Pandering to them

Mr. Bush said it (the National Association of Evangelicals) was founded "with the highest of callings, to proclaim the word of God." He added, "You are doing God's work with conviction and kindness and on behalf of our country I thank you."

This is NOT good for my rage. Serenity now. Serenity now. ~sigh~ Okay. Will someone please remind the former Governor of Tex-ass that when he speaks on behalf of the country, he speaks on behalf of me, and that I hate it when illiterate simps speak on my behalf. Or maybe this dilusional puppet was speaking about some imaginary country of which I'm not aware. In that case, carry on in your psychosis, Mr. Usurper.

Oh, hey. I just had a thought. I wonder if it's against the law to de-pants the fGoT. I mean, I know it's illegal to take a shot at him, but what harm would we be doing by yanking down his trousers. He's made such a mockery of the Presidency that I doubt de-pantsing him could really lower the office much more.

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution,...

No, prostitution is the most enduring human institution. Viva la prostitucione!

...honored and encouraged in cultures and by every religious faith.

Uhh..actually, the FLDS church encourages the union of a man and women. So, will the amendment allow polygamy? No? Doesn't sound like a very Christian-like interpretation, then. Cause, you know, most o' the Old Testament dudes had multiple wives. "...And it was good". Will the amendment codify that women must be virgins on their wedding day? No? Does Bush really want to go against his god like that?

Judge does the right thing...

...and the zealots on the Reich whine.

N.C. District Judge Requests Religion-Neutral Oaths, Courtrooms

Lanier said, "Because we are a Christian nation and we've been a Christian nation for 300 years, the thing that bothers me is, are we conforming to a minority?"

Some please roll up a BIG copy of the Constitution and beat this Bonk Job over the head with it! Please! Okay, then...moving on from the Christian-nation blather we have "conforming to a minority". A more realistic concern is "conforming to a majority". This country was founded to protect the minority view from the majority view. Which is pretty much what this judge is doing. Actually, he's not even going as far as that. He's just ensuring that his courtroom remains religion-neutral. Just like the Constitution says.

Brian Shipwash, Davidson County's clerk of court, opposes the new wording because he believes it violates tradition and detracts from his authority over court clerks.

I AM CHRISTIAN! FEAR ME!! What? I can't do that anymore? Well, damn it! Whaaaaaaaa!!

How 'bout reporting on something we don't already know

Five Who Found Faith: A USA Weekend piece about faith in the military.

It is said there are no atheists in foxholes. In a literal sense, of course, that isn't the case; the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers is an active, online resource for non-religious people in the military. Still, the presence of faith is strong in the armed services, especially in wartime.

Seems like the bigger news story, then, would be of those "Atheists in foxholes". Why not report on the atheists, the freethinkers, the agnostics? Since when do news agencies report on "some guy getting up, driving to work, working eight hours, then driving home"? The news is there to report on the sensational; the guy who causes a 20 car pile-up on the way to work...and they don't often care about anything but the accident. So what's with reporting on the beliefs of the majority? There's no news there. I'd say that the rate of belief in the military is higher than in the general population, so that likely puts it at higher than 95%. Stories on the minority less than 5% would seem to be much more newsworthy. But that's just my take on it.

Once the gunfire started, I prayed and never stopped. Then I was shot in the knee.

Perhaps taking cover would have been a better course of action?

Prince of the Morning Star Defeated!

Or, you know...maybe not.

Did banning Satan make a difference?

"Be it known from this day forward," she began, "that Satan, ruler of darkness, giver of evil, destroyer of what is good and just, is not now, nor ever again will be, a part of this town of Inglis ... In the past, Satan has caused division, animosity, hate, confusion, ungodly acts on our youth, and discord among our friends and loved ones. NO LONGER!"

And finally:

"We exercise our authority over the devil in Jesus' name. By that authority, and through His Blessed Name, we command all satanic and demonic forces to cease their activities and depart the town of Inglis."

Oh the silliness!

Then, the unthinkable: Someone stole one of the posts and the messages rolled-up inside.

Whoops! Looks like the Dark One hasn't been defeated after all!

All four were replaced, this time sunk into the ground with reinforced concrete. For good measure, metal caps were installed and a local Pentecostal pastor anointed the posts with oil and a blessing.

Why do they need metal caps and reinforced concrete when they've been blessed and anointed? Oh, ye of little faith!

"I got nothing against the mayor. She was trying to do right by the community she loves. But if you start thinking that the devil is outside of you, foreign somehow, you stop taking a good, hard look at the evil inside yourself, in your own deeds."

Hey! What do you know? Someone with a modicum of intelligence in a town led by (and likely full of) Bonk Jobs.

American Theocracy

'On a Mission From God': The Religious Right and the Emerging American Theocracy

Meanwhile, former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed explained Bush's rise to the White House in revolutionary terms. "You're no longer throwing rocks at the building; you're in the building," he said, adding that God "knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way."

Wow. Their god is reeeeeally dumb if he installed Bush thinking he would be a great leader. So far Bush has run into the ground two businesses, the state of Tex-ass, and the country.

Bush promised, in the President's own words, "to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil."

Can you say "delusions of grandeur"?

Who supports same-sex marriage? A Reich Wing view.

...for the record, I consider the great majority of supporters of same-sex marriage to be thoroughly decent people...

...they're still wrong, though, and they're going to burn in hell for their herecy.

In my view, proponents of same-sex marriage fall into three categories.

One is the secular Left -- people who seek to end the dominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life.

They are animated by their fear and loathing of Bible-based Christians (and Jews) whom they regard as religious fanatics.

I don't fear religious fanatics...I pity them. Well, okay I fear the ones with guns. And the ones with the intelligence of a grade-schooler who've usurped the will of the people to gain power in this country; the ones with their fingers on the nuclear trigger. Okay, fine...I fear religious fanatics. And that would be wrong, why?

A second group consists of many well-meaning Americans who are not leftists and who do not yearn for the end of Judeo-Christian values. They simply believe that same-sex marriage is either the right thing to do or, even if wrong, not a big deal.

You can get almost any policy approved by vast numbers of Americans by appealing to their goodness -- which is what the cause of same-sex marriage does.

Damn those evil Leftists! Damn them for wanting us to act out of goodness for the cause of equality!

When the average American hears the word "intolerance," he jumps through hoops to avoid being associated with such an awful thing.

Unlesss, of course, he's a rabid religious Bonk Job. In which case, he embraces -- nee, celebrates! -- his bigotry and intolerance.

One can tolerate gay couples, move next door to them, invite them over for a barbecue, love them as fellow family members or just as fellow human beings, and still fight for the preservation of marriage as every civilization has known it.

Bzzt! Wrong! This is typical Christian blather about "hating the actions but loving the person". It's crap because the not-so-subtle message they send to their gay family and friends is that they despise a part of who they are. And that's no way to love a person. And another thing...marriage as it is known today is hardly a traditional social institution. The Romans viewed marriage as a civil contract which protected children and property. Licenses were granted and revoked. And they were granted to same-sex couples just the same as to hetero couples. It wasn't until that uptight wonk Constantine came along that gays were persecuted in ancient Rome.

The third group of supporters of same-sex marriage is the religious Left. Their social values are generally identical to those of the secular Left, but they think of those values as religious. These Jews and Christians say they support same-sex marriage not despite their religious identity, but because of it.

This is the group that are the most wrong! Bastards! Trying to use my hateful, bigoted, intolerant religion to justify equality and tolerance and geniune love!

Of the three groups, these individuals, whose sincerity I do not question, are the most confused.

You must learn to embrace the hateful undercurrent of fundamentalist Christianity!

Educated People Less Likely to Believe that Myths are Real

There you have it, folks. Straight from the horse's...err...mouth. Education is apparently a deterrent to Christian belief. Who woulda thunk it? (Please note that I can't attest to the scientific or statistical validity of the study).

Next week: people who walk in the rain run the risk of getting wet.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage debate Which pretty much means that the progressives make logical, compassionate arguments for treating all people equally and the conservatives pule about their invisible man in the sky getting pissed and raining down hellfire for our "wickedness".

"It's anarchy," said Rick Forcier of the Washington state chapter of the Christian Coalition. "We seem to have lost the rule of law. It's very frightening when every community decides what laws they will obey."

Every community decides what laws to enact in the first place, so why should it be "anarchy" when they decide which to obey? That's just a precursor to changing those laws which they deem unecessary.

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski questioned the legality of Multnomah County issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, saying the state's 1863 marriage statute suggested marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

The marriage statute suggests that marriage is a union between a man and a woman? Doesn't sound like it's illegal, then.

Determined to stop gay marriages, Republican senators in Washington, D.C., said Wednesday they will move later this month to consider several versions of a constitutional amendment to block the same-sex unions.

So much for the Republicans being the "State's Rights" party.

The legal action against West prompted the head of a conservative group to demand that California Attorney General Bill Lockyer file criminal charges against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who many criticize for starting the latest crisis.

Oh yeah...spreading love and compassion. Definitely a crisis.

Cookies of Morality

Where parents of some wacko -- I mean Waco -- area Girl Scouts prove that they can be just as uptight, homophobic, and rabidly anti-sex as the best of 'em. Some Texans Boycott GS Cookies (Side note: is it any surprise that this is happening in the home town of the former Governor of Texas?)

Some 400 to 700 fifth- through ninth-graders attend the half-day Nobody's Fool conference in Waco each July. The program never mentions abortion, according to Planned Parenthood. The youngsters receive a book with chapters on homosexuality and masturbation, as well as illustrations of couples having sex, people examining their naked bodies and a boy putting on a condom.

Some Girl Scout mothers called it soft-core porn.

"It embarrassed me to look at it with my husband," said parent Shannon Donaldson.

Oh, baby! I bet this one's an absolute firecracker in the bedroom! What an amazing sex life her and her husband must have! ~sigh~ Will someone please pass this woman a nice vibrator before she explodes.

"Our girls have been through a lot these past three weeks," said Jennifer Smith, who quit as leader of Girl Scout Troop 7527 and removed her daughter. "After I told my 10-year-old daughter that they are supporting some things that are not morally right, she understood."

And like a good Christian family, there was no discussion regarding what those "things" are or why they would be considered immoral. No discussion. No intelligent exchange of ideas. Just dogma. Abortion: immoral. Masturbation: immoral. Contraception: immoral. Education: immoral.