Archive for August, 2012
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Friday, August 31st, 2012 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments
Tingles doesn’t much like being called Tingles:
A scuffle involving an MSNBC producer and two men who heckled host Chris Matthews was being investigated by security officials Thursday night a few blocks from the Republican National Convention.
Matthews was hosting a show at a makeshift outdoor stage near the Tampa Bay Times Forum after Mitt Romney accepted the GOP presidential nomination. During a break, two men shouted, “Hey Chris, how’s that tingle up your leg?” The comment was a reference to Matthews’ 2008 comment that a Barack Obama speech sent a “thrill up his leg.”
According to witnesses, a shoving match ensued.
“Then this short dude who works for MSNBC pushed them,” said Toby David, who came to the defense of the two hecklers. Another witness, Kim Churchman, added, “One of them was smiling and didn’t know it was coming, and the guy just shoved him.”
Said David: “He kept pushing them around, so I rolled over there. And the MSNBC guy says, ‘You wanna get in trouble too?’ I said: ‘Who are you? A cop? If not, maybe I should make a call and we’ll see who’s in trouble.’ The MSNBC guy was just talking tough.”
So show a little respect. Don’t refer to Tingles as Tingles. Call Tingles by his correct name. Fat, Bloated, Corrupt, Massachusetts Democratic Party Hack. I guess you could also call Tingles “MSNBC Host” but that would just be mean.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, August 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments
File under Bag, Cat Out of the. Here’s a little schadenfreude to get you through to your weekend. Guess where the Episcopal Church’s pension fund is invested.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, August 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 15 Comments
Attention anyone living in the City of Chicago, suburban Cook County, that vast area surrounded by Joliet, Aurora, Elgin, Lake Michigan and the Wisconsin border, anyone who can locate Chicago on a map, fans(resident or non-resident) of the Chicago White Sox, Chicago Bears, Chicago Bulls, Chicago Black Hawks, Chicago Rush, Chicago Wolves, Chicago Fire, Northwestern University Wildcats, UIC Flames, Chicago Slaughter, Chicago Bandits, Kane County Cougars, Joliet Slammers, Schaumburg Flyers, any area professional or semi-professional team I may have missed, all of Chicagoland’s fine high school athletic programs as well as the Chicago Cubs, anyone with big shoulders, anyone named O’Leary, anyone who owns a cow, anyone who has seen a cow, anyone who has ever purchased, consumed, worn or used any product made from or by a cow, anyone who saw The Blues Brothers and/or bought one of their recordings, anyone who thought that Saturday Night Live “DAH Bearsss!” sketch was funny and anyone anywhere who enjoys deep-dish pizza.
Chris “Tingles” Matthews and his guests think you suck:
“Yeah, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.”
“They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the ‘burbs.”
[One of Tingles’ guests] “There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, August 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 13 Comments
Young Episcopalians hit the streets for some reason:
Progressive lay evangelist Adrian Dannhauser has been known to stand on a busy Stamford, Connecticut street at lunchtime with a sign: “Want Prayer?”
Sometimes she’d add a verbal invitation to those who approached. Others sometimes passed her by, slowed, turned around and returned.
“You’d hear about the loss of a loved one just the day before,” she recalled during a recent telephone interview. “Or, ‘my wife is having trouble getting pregnant.’
“It’s a beautiful form of evangelism,” she said, her voice breaking. “To bear witness to people’s souls is such a privilege. You’re looking to share an experience. You try to facilitate an encounter with God.
“Progressive evangelism is connecting my story, your story and the great story.”
“You’re not trying to change anyone’s mind or belief system,” said Dannhauser, 34. “I will pray with anyone of any faith in whatever mode they’re comfortable.”
Progressive evangelism, says Gaddis, now a transitional deacon and chaplain at the University of Maryland at College Park, means first and foremost, living out in a very visceral way, the baptismal promise “to seek and serve Christ in all persons and loving your neighbor as yourself.”
“It assumes that Christ is already present,” Gaddis said during a recent telephone interview. “The goal is not to bring people to church but to reveal the presence of church between you and the person you’re talking to.”
“To be a progressive evangelist means that I am ready and able and desire to hear someone else’s spiritual story and their authentic being through that story and to reply with a story of my own that shows that I was really present.”
Kids? It’s great that you want to pray with folks. But if you’re listening to someone else’s “spiritual story,” doesn’t that sort of imply that you were “present” whether or not you reply with a spiritual story of your own?
Seems like it might. And if the “church” is already present between you and whoever’s time you’re wasting and since you don’t want to change their “belief system” or get them to come to your church, exactly what are you doing out there anyway?
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Thursday, August 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 39 Comments
National Review’s Jim Geraghty:
FACT: Many people think their arguments are more persuasive or authoritative if they begin a sentence with the word ‘FACT’ and a colon.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 16 Comments
Insofar as the organization that paid for this poll endorsed Todd Akin, it’s probably not a good idea to read a whole lot into this. Be that as it may, Wenzel Strategies claims that Todd Akin is basically tied with Claire McCaskill even after the firestorm:
The Wenzel Strategies telephone survey of likely General Election voters in Missouri shows that Republican Todd Akin leads incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill in the race for U.S. Senate by a 45% to 42% margin, with 13% undecided.
The survey, conducted Aug. 27-28, 2012, shows that four out of five voters in Missouri are firm in their choice for U.S. Senate.
Akin holds a 10-point advantage among independent voters, leading 44% to 34% over McCaskill, which is a key to his overall advantage, the survey shows. McCaskill wins 82% support Democrats and Akin wins 78% among Republicans. While 6% of Democrats said they were unsure about their support, 11% of Republicans said the same thing.
Two things. This controversy seems to have been a much bigger deal outside this state than in it. We’re an obstreperous lot, we Pukes, and we don’t like being ordered around. And apparently Claire herself seems to believe that this race is not over by a long shot and is a whole lot closer than most people think.
After a series of television ads critical of her Republican rival, Democratic U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill focused on her own record and places where she has contrasted with President Obama in her latest campaign commercial.
Citing her roots in rural Missouri, the narrator cites times where she has opposed Obama, as McCaskill continues to make her case to Missouri voters that she is a “Missouri moderate.”
“A daughter of rural Missouri, Claire has never afraid to stand up to anyone, including the president on ‘cap and trade,’ anti-business regulations, and the Keystone Pipeline,” the narrator said.
Here’s the ad if you want to watch it.
Does that change your opinion of Akin, Johnson? No. I still think he’s a horrible candidate. If Sarah Steelman or John Brunner had won the nomination, this race would already be over. But I do think that, much to the irritation, consternation and embarrassment of St. Louis and St. Louis County, this state is a whole lot redder than many people here would prefer it to be.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 13 Comments
Rowan Williams seems to have developed the ability to make other people as incoherent as he is. I have absolutely no idea what Theo Hobson is yammering on about here:
Despite his theological brilliance, Rowan Williams’ approach to the place of religion in society has been deeply flawed. In my opinion, it is this that has marred his leadership of the Church of England. I am reluctant to say this, for I greatly admire his thought, particularly his insight into the sacramental essence of Christianity. I paid close attention to his utterances as archbishop. I wrote quite a few articles on him, and even a short book about his ecclesiology. I do not expect to pay his successor such attention. I feel I ought to express gratitude that such a serious thinker has led the church this past decade. But it needs to be said: I do not think that he has been good for the Church of England. I consider him a brilliant, but flawed, theologian. And I think that the past decade has brought out his flawed side, given it great exposure, influence. I am talking about his deeply ideological view of liberalism.
Why is that, T?
To put it bluntly, he has a very low opinion of the liberal state. This is influenced by various things: the Marxist critique of liberalism as a veneer for capitalism, the communitarian idea (associated with Alasdair MacIntyre and others) that liberal values are weak, thin, illusory, and most obviously his deep preference for Catholicism and Orthodoxy over Protestantism. These factors led him to see liberalism as an essentially secular ideology that wants to “privatise” religion, push it from “the public square”. (It was ironic that the press dubbed him a liberal on account of his relative sympathy with gay rights and his leftwing politics, because he represented a militantly “post-liberal” form of theology.)
And that’s bad?
Williams’s anti-liberal tendency was exacerbated by 9/11, and the sudden arrival of a religious-based culture war in Britain. Instead of reassuring Britons that religion and liberalism were compatible, he did the opposite: painted liberalism as the enemy of “faith communities”, and dismissed liberal fears that an expanding faith school sector might damage social cohesion. The real danger, he said, was not religion seeking a larger role in society (including the partial introduction of sharia law) but the secular liberal “agenda”, driven by soulless capitalism, and arrogant atheism. He presented the role of the established church as to defend all forms of religion from the threat of bullying secularism.
According to Theo, religion is fine as long as it does what the state needs for it to do. Or something along those lines. Maybe.
What is the liberal state? It is, I suggest, the state that has moved away from theocratic religion (or secular totalitarianism), and that finds a new narrative of national identity in “liberty”. This move entails limiting some forms of religious expression, forms that retain theocratic impulses. The liberal state therefore insists that not all religion can be allowed full expression in “the public square”. Of course there is a danger of a new authoritarianism, in the name of “liberty”. But the liberal state can learn to mitigate this. Above all, this is the least worst form of religious politics. Recent thinkers, both religious and secular, are guilty of failing to renew this narrative; they think they are cleverly postmodern by denigrating it.
It’s right about here where Hobsie loses me.
What is ironic about Williams’s denigration of this narrative is that the national church has played a key role in it. Its establishment is a strangely ambiguous phenomenon. It is rooted in an early form of liberalism: a national church was the way to ward off Catholic theocracy and become a free modern nation. But of course establishment was inhibitive of full religious liberty. The establishment is therefore fraught with contradictory meanings.
Whatever you say, Theo.
For all his famous intellect, Williams has not helped us to reflect on this rich and strange tradition. A national religious leader should open up the discussion about religion and liberalism, encourage new honesty, in church and nation, about its complexity. Instead, Williams pushed his excessively ideological view of the matter. His legacy seems clear. He has strengthened the hand of more conventional conservatives like John Sentamu, his likely successor (gulp). And he has left liberal Anglicanism in a more demoralised state than ever – which might be good for it, might force it to ask what it is for.
So. Rowan Williams is a Christian liberal who’s actually a Christian conservative because he…ah, screw it. Haven’t got the time and I officially and finally lost interest a year or so ago. Since I’m so incredibly awesome at discovering fundamental laws of the universe, let me propose another one. If people routinely respond to whatever you say or write with, “I think what _______ means here is..,” your communication skills suck.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments
A notary in the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo has sparked controversy by accepting a civil union between three people.
Public Notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues has said the man and two women should be entitled to family rights.
She says there is nothing in law to prevent such an arrangement.
But the move has angered some religious groups, while one lawyer described it as “absurd and totally illegal”.
The three individuals, who have declined to speak to the press, have lived in Rio de Janeiro together for three years and share bills and other expenses.
Does this sound familiar?
Ms Domingues, who is based in the Sao Paulo city of Tupa, said the move reflected the fact that the idea of a “family” had changed.
“We are only recognising what has always existed. We are not inventing anything.”
“For better or worse, it doesn’t matter, but what we considered a family before isn’t necessarily what we would consider a family today.”
Let’s see. There’s a Biblical case to be made; both David and Solomon had multiple wives, didn’t they? Jesus never explicitly condemned the practice of the nightly three-way. The Biblical writers didn’t know anything about the sorts of three-person families we know today. It’s all coming together.
If anybody needs me, I’ll be surfing the Web looking for a book on how to forage for food in the wild. Once society collapses, I figure I’ll end up living in the woods some place.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 11 Comments
I’m a Protestant. And I guess I favor the Baptist approach to things more than the Anglican one because I prefer my Christian worship to be simple, direct and unadorned. Toward the end of my run with the Episcopalians, the Anglo-Catholic pomp and circumstance at my joint really began to annoy me so, except for Christmas and Easter, I completely abandoned it in favor of this low-church thing we did in a small, side chapel.
Spend the first 48 years of your life inside a particular tradition and leaving it is the hardest thing in the world so I keep telling myself that I’m going to die as some kind of Anglican or other. But I really think that I’m probably going to end up as a Southern Baptist or as a member of some other church with a similar, low-church style of worship.
For one thing, the sermons are better. But that’s not saying much. Not many traditions don’t preach better than the Episcopalians, Catholics included. And I read Charles Spurgeon all the time so maybe I’m setting the bar awfully high.
I just wish that some Southern Baptists would stop embarrassing me. Take Mike Huckabee. The former Baptist pastor and later governor of Arkansas used to be someone I would have enthusiastically backed for president. Not anymore:
Mike Huckabee rallied hundreds of Southern Baptists on a conference call Friday night in support of Todd Akin, offering advice about how they can help the embattled Missouri Senate candidate stay in the race — while acknowledging Akin still may have to bow out.
“This could be a Mount Carmel moment,” said the former Arkansas governor, referring to the holy battle between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the book of Kings. “You know, you bring your gods. We’ll bring ours. We’ll see whose God answers the prayers and brings fire from heaven. That’s kind of where I’m praying: that there will be fire from heaven, and we’ll see it clearly, and everyone else will to.”
Head, Keyboard, you know the drill. Just call me QWERTY Face. WONderful idea, Huck. Compare a true prophet of the living God to an arrogant, self-centered, opportunistic six-term Missouri congressman who can’t get out of his own way but thinks he’s entitled to the nomination simply because a tiny percentage of Missourians tapped the touch screen for him. If that doesn’t convince people, I don’t know what will. David Barton, one of the people Huck called in for this conference of his, doubled down.
“There’s been a lot of political leaders who have made major gaffes but not just misspoken,” said Barton. “One of the greatest leaders in Israel’s history was David, who had [committed] adultery, murdered Uriah, etc. But he repented. God gave him forgiveness. Great leader. But that was not a misspeaking of words. And then Noah had trouble with drunkenness. God still used him. Samuel couldn’t control his children. He ran a nation. Moses, guilty of murder. He came back, delivers a nation.”
Go on sinning that grace might increase, Dave? Once again, we’re talking about one inept Missouri congressman here, not one of the Apostles. And believe me, it’s not like Missouri Republicans are shunning the next Abraham Lincoln. Oh, and Huck? If you want to take the Christian approach to this controversy, it seems like it would be a pretty good idea to steer clear of lying through your teeth.
Huckabee said he received calls from the highest levels of the Republican Party after he came out in support of Akin, who came under fire Sunday after his “legitimate rape” remarks. But Huckabee suggested the GOP establishment has begun to realize that Akin may wind up being their only hope.
“Today, the rhetoric was dramatically dialed back,” he said. “You did not see the NRSC, the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, coming out with the kind of harsh statements because they’ve dialed it back. They’ve assured me that they will no longer be threatening the business of some of the vendors in politics and telling them that if they do anything to help Todd, they’d be blackballed and not get any business.
“That kind of stuff’s been going on, and I told these people yesterday that I talked to: That’s got to stop. It can’t continue. That’s what union goons do: breaking people’s kneecaps when you cross a line. And Todd Akin has done nothing but make a mistake for which he has roundly repudiated the comment and apologized. There’s nothing else he can do.”
The NRSC pushed back firmly on Huckabee’s accusation.
“We have a great deal of respect for Gov. Huckabee and regret that we do not see eye to eye with him on this race,” said NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh. “It’s important to set the record straight, though, that the types of tactics he describes simply did not happen — and further, no one at the NRSC has even spoken with the governor this week.”
Huckabee released a statement Saturday walking back the comments he made on the call.
“I have not had any direct contact with leaders or staff from the NRSC,” he said in the emailed statement. “This is an attempt to create a story. My comments this week on my own forums of radio and to the people who choose to receive communications from me are first hand and accurately reflect what I said. I hardly need third-party news outlets who ‘heard’ things to report on that which simply didn’t happen. Harry Reid has imaginary friends who tell him things about others, and it appears that there are some others in the media who have some imaginary friends.”
Ah, the famous reductio ad infantum argument, popularly known as “I’m rubber and you’re glue, etc.” Dave Weigel reports that if Huck ever wants to take another run at high political office, he’s got a “magic uterus” problem of his own which, amazingly, he handled even worse than Akin handled his.
But Huckabee’s been at this rodeo — do pilgrims rodeo? — at this clam bake for quite some time. In 1998, Arkansas State Senator Fay Boozman helped wreck his chances at a U.S. Senate seat by suggesting that rape-activated female hormones could prevent pregnancy — “God’s little shield.”
Boozman lost by 12 points. Then he lucked out. Gov. Mike Huckabee, a friend and political ally for many years, put Boozman in charge of the Arkansas Department of Health. The “God’s little shield” controversy was fresh, and Huckabee kept getting asked about it. As far as he was concerned, the story was over, and it was unfair to harp on it. “If nothing else,” said Huckabee, according to a February 1999 story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, “I hope to make it very clear that our administration is not governed by intimidation. We’re not going to allow the shrill voices of a few to so disparage the character of a very decent and good person to an outstanding position in such a way that Arkansas would lose his service at the Department of Health.”
Look. I’m certain that Todd Akin is a wonderful person who just picked the wrong words to answer an interviewer. Those things happen. But fairly or unfairly, Huck, the simple fact of the matter is that Akin’s words and, more importantly, his words and actions since then have badly hurt the GOP and turned an easy Republican senatorial pick-up into a probable Democratic senatorial retention.
There were two other conservatives in the Missouri primary, Sarah Steelman and John Brunner, who are just as pro-life as Akin is and haven’t made complete fools of themselves in public for a couple of months. So for you to turn support for Akin, by far the weakest candidate of the three, into some kind of religious litmus test is more than a little offensive to me, Huck, and I share your views on most issues.
Your loyalty to your friends is admirable, Huck, and in an ideal world, Akin’s apology would have sufficed, he’d still lead the execrable McCaskill and one of his aides would be in Washington as I type this, lining up his living arrangements and office space. But we don’t live in an ideal world, Huck.
Because if we did, Akin understands the damage he had, however inadvertently, done to his party and to the causes he says he supports and withdraws from the race. Instead, this clueless dolt thinks that winning 36% of 200,000 votes entitles him to remain the Republican nominee, regardless of how his candidacy affects the party here in Missouri and elsewhere across the country.
Huck, you and Akin make much of the fact that you’re independent of the “Republican establishment” and how the “party bosses” don’t much care for either of you. So you have no right to complain about how the “Republican establishment” is reluctant to fly to your aid now. If the two of you don’t like them, they probably don’t like the two of you.
Why not? If you get the time, Huck, look up the meaning of the term “team player.”
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 32 Comments
If he loses this fall, Captain Awesome wants you to know that he’s going to be VERY disappointed with some of you:
Last week, when I was in Iowa, voters told me they were feeling it. The numbers back it up: Our side is getting outspent 2-to-1 on the air there.
But the folks asking me about this don’t want an explanation — they want to know what I’m going to do about it.
And the fact is that solving this problem is up to you ….
We’re losing this air war right now.
I don’t have as much time to campaign this time as I did in 2008, so this whole thing is riding on you making it happen.
UPDATE: Reason #479,831 why Iowahawk is the best there is.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 14 Comments
And then there is Joe Biden. Given his age (he would be 74 on Inauguration Day 2017), his Rodney Dangerfield reputation among Democrats, and the icon status of presumed front-runner Hillary Clinton, few political observers seem confident he’ll even contest the next race. Except, that is, for Biden himself, who has been anything but bashful about his intentions for 2016. When asked by CNN late last year if he was “closing that door” on another attempt at the White House, a slightly offended Biden insisted he was “not closing anything.” He elaborated: “I wouldn’t have run for president in the first place—and I don’t think the president would have picked me—unless he thought I’d be good at the job.”
First, Biden is going to extravagant lengths to ensure his boss’s reelection while putting his own ambitions on hold, in the hope that the Obama brass will reward this selflessness when the time comes. There is, quite simply, no speech Biden won’t deliver if it advances the White House cause, no attack on Mitt Romney he won’t wage, no annual convention of Pacific Islander flight attendants he won’t attend on the president’s behalf. “To some extent, he’s put himself in a challenging position [for 2016] by playing by the rules of the Obama political operation and not doing a lot of the prep work, particularly around fund-raising, you would ordinarily be doing by now,” says the adviser.
But Biden’s inner circle believes the strategy will position him to inherit key players on President Obama’s political team. The adviser notes, for example, that Jim Messina, the president’s 2012 campaign manager, is a huge Biden fan who could play a leading role in a future campaign: “Jim and the vice president have built up a nice relationship these past four years.” Likewise, Rufus Gifford, the Obama campaign’s chief fund-raiser, could give Biden entrée to deep-pocketed donors (who have eluded him thus far) in Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and the financial sector. “I know [Gifford] felt the vice president has done a great job. He could be instrumental in pulling together money for this,” the adviser explains.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 13 Comments
Some free verse arrived today:
Pensee form of indicated squeezes in certain natural leather provide the massive pansy like bloom in the same materials sitting on exploding with the band
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 33 Comments
American women? There’s no easy way to put this so I’ll just come right out and say it. Naomi Wolf has a new book out about her va-jay-jay:
When an unexpected medical crisis sends Naomi Wolf on a deeply personal journey to tease out the intersections between sexuality and creativity, she discovers, much to her own astonishment, an increasing body of scientific evidence that suggests that the vagina is not merely flesh, but an intrinsic component of the female brain—and thus has a fundamental connection to female consciousness itself.
Utterly enthralling and totally fascinating, Vagina: A New Biography draws on this set of insights about “the mind-vagina connection” to reveal new information about what women really need, and considers what a sexual relationship—and a relationship to the self—transformed by these insights could look like.
Exhilarating and groundbreaking, Vagina: A New Biography combines rigorous science, explained for lay readers, with cultural history and deeply personal considerations of the role of female desire in female identity, creativity, and confidence, from interviewees of all walks of life. Heralded by Publishers Weekly as one of the best science books of the year, it is a provocative and deeply engaging book that elucidates the ties between a woman’s experience of her vagina and her sense of self; her impulses, dreams, and courage; and her role in love and in society in completely new and revelatory ways sure to provoke impassioned conversation.
A brilliant and nuanced synthesis of physiology, history, and cultural criticism, Vagina: A New Biography explores the physical, political, and spiritual implications of this startling series of new scientific breakthroughs for women and for society as a whole, from a writer whose conviction and keen intelligence have propelled her works to the tops of bestseller lists, and firmly into the realms of modern classics.
That woman over there whose face is maroon is Ann Althouse.
Yes, once again we learn that we women are so fabulously multidimensional and men are so simple. So let me tell it to you straight: Cough up the tax money to pay for the fancy diagnostics of our neural misalignments and the surgery to reconnect us so we can have “the ‘blended’ clitoral and vaginal orgasms” that will return women to “the sense of deep emotional union, of post-coital creative euphoria, of joy with oneself and one’s lover… and the sense that all was well in some existential way, that [Naomi Wolf] thought [she] had lost for ever.” And don’t be raising any of your war-on-women objections.
In other V’Ger news, send the kids away for a few minutes. Those wacky Code Pink gals actually went through with it. I have no absolutely no explanation for that guy on the left. None whatsoever. And if any of you wondered why the Pinkies dressed up as giant versions of some obscure oceanic flatworm, this person helpfully corrects your error.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Monday, August 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 20 Comments
Episcopal radicals like Susan Russell and Jim Naughton regularly hang the “bigot” label on anyone who disagrees with them about any aspect of The Issue, from homosexual bishops to homosexual marriages. But guess which prominent Episcopalian thinks that Naughton’s and Russell’s attitude is actually kind of stupid. Here’s a hint: he’s the recently-retired Episcopal bishop of a diocese whose name rhymes with Blue Thrampshire:
Christians who oppose gay marriage are sometimes described as “haters.” Is that characterization fair?
No. I’m concerned about the escalating violent language and overstatement. We can’t have a civil discussion about much of anything. I do not believe that everyone who opposes gay marriage hates gay people. There are many principled faithful people who oppose it based on what they have been taught to believe and do believe. We do not move forward by asserting that the other side is hating us.
Credit where it’s due. If Gene Robinson thinks people need to dial down the bigotry blasts, where does that leave Naughton and Russell? And if more people in the Episcopal Organization agreed with Robbie, might the last twelve years of the Current Unpleasantness have been somewhat less unpleasant than they turned out to be?
Be that as it may, seeing as how reasonable Gene Robinson suddenly seems, are you going to start attending an Episcopal Organization outlet again, Chris? Not a chance. The fact of the matter is that homosexual bishops and homosexual marriages don’t even scratch the surface of what’s wrong with TEO and really had nothing to do with why I should have been out of TEO long before anyone ever heard the name Gene Robinson.
Figuring a Biblical way past the gay thing only brings you to the nooner-with-Unitarianism “theology” of the current Episcopal prayer book, TEO’s enthusiastic embrace of abortion and groups like Murder, Inc. and the [Pseudo] Religious Coalition for Ripping apart Children, the hard leftist politics and the fact that the first commenter to this story was Susan Russell who applauded it (didn’t read it all the way to the end, did you, Susie Q?), proving once again that Episcopalians don’t seriously believe much of anything.
Robbie was only a symptom. The disease had set in long before him.
Posted by Christopher Johnson | Sunday, August 26th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 12 Comments
So you’ve decided to push all-in holding 9-3 off-suited, Congressman? Good luck but I don’t like your chances. You were beating Claire McCaskill but Rasmussen just released a poll showing that you’re now down ten points.
Here’s the deal. What’s killing you isn’t the words you said in that Charles Jaco interview. Who among us hasn’t grappled for a word and sometimes chosen badly? We get that you misspoke.
Although, in the future, if you bring “science” into a discussion of the greatest nightmare women have and something that will never ever directly affect you, make sure the science isn’t idiotic twaddle. Better yet, don’t bring science into the discussion at all. Even scientists know when to dial it down.
Time and place, Congressman.
What’s destroying you is the plain fact that you very likely might be the most inept political candidate for any office that I’ve ever seen. Congressman, Christine O’Donnell thinks you suck as a US senatorial candidate and she at least had the excuse of being a relative political neophyte. You, on the other hand, been in the US Congress for twelve years and should have known that you’d get asked questions like Jaco’s.
Right after this thing broke, I thought it was survivable. But ever since that time, Congressman, you’ve made one mistake after another. Let’s start with Piers Morgan.
Going that program might actually have helped you tremendously. You man up, you go on, you explain that you misspoke, you publicly apologize, you take your lumps from Morgan and chances are, this thing goes away.
Except you that you did the dumbest thing you could possibly have done which was to stand Morgan up. Now you not only looked like a fool, you looked like a scared coward, to use Mike Tyson’s phrase.
Then there was that “rape is bad” ad that you ran. Congressman, we all know that you know that rape is an evil act. It was your choice of words that got you into trouble and what you should have apologized for.
Congressman, I know that your son is your campaign manager. But I wonder if you wouldn’t be better off at this point letting your campaign be managed by a Magic 8-Ball. At least there’s a chance that the Magic 8-Ball would have advised against that ridiculous press conference of the other day.
What was that presser supposed to prove? Why did you feel the need to tell the world what you already told Mike Huckabee and Dana Loesch? What was the point of reading a short statement, taking a few softball questions(which were probably plants) and then leaving five minutes after you began?
Do you honestly think that performance impressed anyone?
I’d dial down that “will of the people” crap if I were you. Congressman, you got 36% of slightly over 200,000 voters. The combined totals of Sarah Steelman and John Brunner, the other two prominent conservatives in the race, blew you out of the water. If one of those two hadn’t been in the race, you probably wouldn’t have won.
You claim that the Republican “establishment” and the Republican “party bosses” don’t particularly like you. Frankly, Congressman, you’ve done a lot to help me understand why. You handed the Democrats a weapon that they’d be foolish not to exploit.
Unfair? Sure, but that’s the nature of politics. And when you have Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and every prominent Republican in the State of Missouri telling you that, unintentionally or not, you’re hurting the party so you should withdraw from the race and you essentially tell every Republican from President Romney on down to eff off, you’ve told the entire country one thing.
Your race is not about principle. It’s about you.
Let me tell you what’s going to happen, Congressman. Cost the GOP a seat which was theirs for the taking and your political career in Missouri is done. And even if you do win, I wouldn’t make any long-term investments in Washington area real estate.
Because you’re six and out.
Missouri’s governor, Jeremiah “Jay” Nixon has to be kicking himself that he didn’t challenge Claire in the primary. The guy’s governed from the center(he’s had to since the Missouri legislature is Republican and will be for quite some time) and even if he has to wait until 2018, Jeremiah will still annihilate you in the general election.
That is, assuming you get that far. The flip side of being independent of the Republican “establishment” and the Republican “party bosses” is that both of those groups owe you jack squat. Folks like Brunner, Steelman and your 2nd District successor, Ann Wagner, have to be chomping at the bit to get a shot at you knowing that the state and federal GOP will open the sluices for them.
Will I vote for you? If you somehow close the gap and my vote might make a difference between Claire leaving the Senate and Claire getting six more years, I’ll probably hold my nose, secure in the knowledge that I’ll vote for one of your opponents in the 2018 primary. But if it’s obvious to everyone that Claire’s going to win another term, I’ll probably vote for some third-party candidate or other.
Barring the chance of you saying or doing something even more titanically stupid than the stuff that you’ve already said or done(the reason why I qualified this title’s post with “Probably”), I’m finished with you, Congressman. Like I said, I hope Claire McCaskill loses. But I don’t think there’s any way in hell that you’re going to defeat her.