Brain Fertilizer

I had challenges when i first started training my daughter, espcially being a single parent made it more difficult but i bought a book that was really good and i was able to train my daughter in a weekend. the book can be found at
http://www.potty-secrets.net/toilet-training.htm

It's a difficult time, but it doesn't last forever.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

My daughter is ready to be trained, but I am not looking forward to the work or the accidents.

Four words of humour for you.

"Potty Training the Elderly"

I so don't know what to say about this...

Your gag reflex is automatically suppressed by having children, I can tell you.
The thing is, there are so many difficult things about being a parent, I feel the need to reach out and talk to anyone else (like Rae, SaaM and Jordana and Dana) who has similar experiences for commiseration/tips/sympathy.

Not moi? Who has potty trained four girls?

I am seriously pouting now....

Leaving....

Poor Rae. Someone should give her a hug.

I'm not disturbed, disgusted, or otherwise unhappy with the topic. It's just an interesting reminder of the things that I know absolutely nothing about. I hate it when that happens.

Fixed, Rae.
...but I plead, well, one of the ordinals (not the 5th, because I'm not self-incriminating, I don't think).
I mentioned SaaM and Jordana because they commented on the thread...I threw Dana in because I've seen and held her babies, and she's posted about potty-training before.
It was just off the top of my head, and not meant to be an exhaustive list.

Okay, Margi, let me have it with both barrels...[grin]
Andy of WWR, Jeff Goldstein can feel free to lay some smack down, as well, if only because they are two blogging Dads I can think of who have posted about their kids.

Some aspects of parentng are less thrilling, but I love having kids.

Ah, the things I have to look forward to. :-) Glad she's catching on...

O.K. Nathan, forgiven :D

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I apologize for Charlie. He would have frozen to death if I had not given him my place in the warmup tent an Kunu Ri in 1950.
Freeze now, you Commie Bastard!

« Hide Comments

*Luckily, I had already gotten her to the tub before it squirted...

Use caution with the negative training. It can backfire causing children to shed wet diapers in hidden locations.

One technique is an all day affair (and what my wife and I will try fairly soon in hopes of training our 2y2m old before the new baby shows up). Our daughter loves juice. On that day, she'll get all the juice she wants, straight up, no watering down. We will have her drink constantly and take her potty every 15 minutes or so. Eventually, we'll catch her then praise her and reward her with M&M's. If you can do it several times, it should catch on in her head.

Granted, my daughter already loves to sit on the potty and really wants to wear big girl panties so I think we've got a head start. She also wants to wear a bra like mommy, but that'll have to wait.

Sure, but when she's not in the mood for it, even just making her sit on the potty is a negative experience.
So far, we did it one day, and got our first success. It's not a big, angry experience, it's just one spat on the bottom to get her attention, because up till now she was always too busy playing to even notice she was soaking wet.

Panties and pottys. You guys are cracking me up. betcha never thought you'd be having this conversation! :-)

Are you kidding? I live for this!

...although I am beginning to think that "women's liberation"'s main success was freeing men to be more involved in their children's lives...

It is my life's complete goal to ensure that I am a major part of my children's lives and that means everything from diapers to discipline, from play time to pray time.

It's the most rewarding experience I've ever had in my life.

I can't say I had deliberately intended being this involved. But I don't think I will ever regret it.

Nathan, buy the training pants, cut the sides and attach velcro tape. Then when an accident of the more disguting nature occurs, it is much easier to take clean up. The other thing to attempt to lessen your laundry is to buy plastic pants (Wal-M) that are for cloth diapers. They fit perfectly over training pants and keep the pants from getting completely soaked, but by using the cloth panties, she still feels the wetness. I can't believe that you have forgotten my thirteen years of experience....

***seriously leaving now and considering if I should come back.....***

I feel your pain, Nathan! My oldest, a very intelligent girl, would not be trained for anything (candy, toys, Disneyland). After countless hours of attempts, bribery and tears (mine), I resigned myself to the fact that she was going to do it when SHE was good and ready, not me. My point is, let it go. A good parent is not always the one whose child reaches milestones on time, it is the one who recognizes his child's need to do things in her own time! Good luck! And if it helps...my boys all did it on their own by 2 1/2 years (using the "no pressure method").

« Hide Comments

I dropped 10% in a day. Not surprising as I've always felt no one really liked me and the only reason they were linking to me was out of pity.

Actually, I am willing to bet he is refining his polling method and not including certain types of links which are very transient (such as comments). But then again, what do I know?

Same thing happened to me. I just figured that a whole slew of new blogs were added, and I've been stagnant, link-wise.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

First, it looks like the professional writers are starting to catch on that the offense is really the ones we should blame:
Article 1.
Article 2.

But there were some good things coming out of the loss. Even besides having that much higher of a draft pick...

First, I think Dick Vermeil is perhaps a little too loyal to his veterans. What I mean is, we've had problems tackling all year, right? Well, did you notice significant missed tackles leading to breakaway runs by Ladanian Tomlinson yesterday? Me, either. Nor any short passes turned into highlight-reel long gains because of defenders bouncing off of WRs like pinballs. Qinton Caver wasn't judged good enough to start at LB, but I saw him make at least 2 good tackles. Willie Pile played decently at defensive back, and made some good tackles. Shaunard Harts didn't let anyone holding the ball get past him. Warfield and Bartee aren't afraid to make tackles, too. Benny Sapp made a good tackle in a difficult open-field situation last week. We've got a number of young guys who need a little more experience to increase coverage skills, but who can all hit, hit hard, and not miss. They need to be on the field. I'd rather lose because our guys can't play quite fast enough than lose because we don't wrap up and make stupid mistakes of alignment and so forth.

Jared Allen is going to be a monster. He's on pace to be the first KC rookie to crack double-digit sacks, I think ever. He came from a small Division I-AA school, so I can't wait to see what happens with another off-season of strength and speed training. Look what it did for Eric Hicks: a skinny undrafted free agent became a solid starter...

Lionel Dalton is a penetrator. He's doing good stuff there. Hopefully he has a year or two left in his tank, because we have enough problems in other places that I don't think we can afford to retool the D-Line.

It looks like Chris Bober is better than John Welbourn. I wish we hadn't waited until game 9 to learn that. There wasn't a veteran loyalty issue there, so why didn't Bober get the chance to start earlier when Welbourn was struggling? Based on this game against San Diego, Bober might be better than the departed JJohn Tait. (Whom we haven't appreciably missed, as I predicted)

I think we might be set at WR for next year, as long as Boerigter is fully recovered from his knee injury. Johnny Morton is having an excellent year, and is the #2 WR in the league for 3rd/4th-down catches that go for TDs or 1st Downs (according to a graphic in the game yesterday). But he's not consistent enough for a #1 WR, maybe because age has made him lose a step. Kennison may be done, as well. I think Morton should be the #3/possession receiver that can move the chains on 3rd down. I think Hall should play fewer snaps, so call him the #4 WR. So who gets to be #1-2? I think Boerigter showed signs of being ready for #1 before he went down with the knee injury. I think either Richard Smith or Samie Parker should be ready to be #2 by the start of next season. Kris Wilson should be ready to kick major butt next year, as well, as a WR-type threat at the #2 TE position, just like Tony Gonzalez. Just like TG, Wilson can catch, run, and block quite well, so we should be more potent next year, barring injury.

We've got 3 good RBs, too, it seems. I would keep Holmes on the roster as the red-zone back, and let Blaylock run between the 20s. I saw him lay a crushing block on a blitzer yesterday, and at the same time saw Larry Johnson whiff on one. Blocking is something a RB can improve on, but I think he showed enough running skills that we might be able to get a good 2nd round or maybe even a low 1st round pick for him, if a team is desperate enough. Dunno...it depends on the prospects in the draft. But Blaylock's ability obviates Johnson, and we could use the cap room.

So in the draft this year, I'd go all defense. Draft more CBs, LBs, and DTs to increase the competition on the defense. If you can cut someone like Jerome Woods (who seems to have gotten too old to play well anymore) and save their salary cap number, that just increases the money you can put into a veteran WR or O-Line player like another Roaf.

I think we've gotten some bad bounces this year. How can Hall fumble on the 5? He should have had two touchdowns, and that would have been enough for the win. But with the way the year is going, fine, let's get our bad luck out of the way this year. How can a near-interception by Warfield turn into a catch for a positive gain??? ...the same way a Delhomme prayer flung up as he was being sacked can be caught for a TD instead of interception going for a TD the other way: The Football Gods have been against us this year, I'm convinced of it. I can't figure out why: we haven't changed our uniform into something modern and garish. Although looking at the Broncos Super Bowl win in the league's ugliest uniform, maybe we should....

Okay, that's it for today. I'll muse more and share more thoughts with you later this week.

« Hide Comments

Wow, the Oracle of Bacon has Ratzenberger with a degree of 2.

I had to cheat on IMDb to get the real result.

(aside: Wedge doesn't need a stinkin' Kevin Bacon Number...)

Yeah, he's not actually credited for his cameo appearance, I guess. It was one of my favorite movies, by the way...

« Hide Comments

LOL. I liked the way Alex handled the information; but I think he is coming from a different perspective then you are; I think his point is that both sides have a lot to say for themselves and it is only when the discussion descends to name-calling and anger that its value is lost. That there is a lot to be said for the give and take of any discussion on G-d. Anyway, that was my take.

I am enjoying the discussion here as it hasn't lost perspective and has remained civil. I like a good, honest debate.

I think the real divide in this country is caused by the fact that the left's been out of intellectual gas for some time and is and has simply been in a reactionary mode for quite some time.

This should not be seen as a permanent state of affairs, merely a phase. The question is, how long? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?

Dean,
The left surely is out of intellectual gas. I'm not sure it is just a phase, though.
I mean, obviously there are intelligent people on both sides, and they will think of ideas that resonate with the population at large, yes, which supports your idea that this is only a phase.
But there are so many principles and special interest groups and automatic assumptions that go along with being a Democrat, that I'm not convinced that those ideas will be heard at all. The Democrat Party, as the main channel for the propogation of progressive ideas, is very much a top-down, do-it-the-way-we-tell-you organization. I don't really believe they can recover under the Democrat Banner. This post about what the word "choice" has come to mean to liberals/Democrats is part of the reason. Control is a very big issue among the liberals, and as our Star Wars philosophy tells us, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your grasp." Except we're talking people instead of star systems, of course.
If all you mean is just "the non-right", well then, of course you are correct. One of the problems with this sort of discussion is that the terms "Leftist", "Liberal", "Progressive", and "Democrat" are slippery terms, all meaning slightly different things. Ideas cannot be suppressed, and it is quite possible that the emergence of a valid opposition ideology may be the process that kills the Democrat Party while maintaining many of the ideas that the Dems embraced.
One of the things I find most interesting is that the Democrats I encounter (mostly in print) seem to wish Republicans would all die or convert so they could implement their ideas unopposed, whereas the bulk of the Republicans I talk with would prefer to have a strong, loyal, valid opposition ideology to provide an alternative if they don't like the direction GOP leadership takes the party. Or do I just know more "conservatives" than "Republicans"?

Rachel Ann,
While I am arguing only my side, I actually do actually see some of the point to the secular side.
I don't know if I really want to return to the late 60s attitude toward Christianity. Non-Christian religious groups were often treated pretty shabbily.
But I do believe that despite some good points by the "secularization" side, the "plurality" argument is the correct one. I wouldn't be trying to advance it if I didn't think that way! [grin]
If I seem to be arguing for Christianity, it's just because that's what we have as the most prevalent example, it's also what at least a plurality believes in.
But I do think "plurality" and a "permissive" environment for all religions is the best way to go. Don't restrict anyone, just let everyone express what they want. Even that has some pitfalls, though, when you look at what's going on in Europe: after the filmmaker was murdered, an artist put up a mural that said, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Despite Islam claiming the Old Testament prophets as prophets of Allah, despite incorporating the 10 Commandments into the Koran, some Muslims initiated a lawsuit saying the mural was offensive to their religion. We'd have to institute a better way of dealing with disputes like that, because we already have non-Christians being offended by seeing a star on top of a decorated tree, and their being offended by calling it a Christmas tree resulting in the White House "Holiday" tree. Sheesh!

Granted, I'm only 30, so I wasn't around during the era of the Democratic Party from FDR to LBJ. But from what I understand, the DNC had cornered the market on compassion, and empowerment of minorities.

They were the party fot the common man. Somewhere (and I like to think it was the 80s under Reagan) the scales tiped and now all of the sudden the DNC wasn't the party for the little guy. It was not as populist, but instead the RNC was more the populist party.

Another observation I made, the DNC is now VERY policy oriented. I've noticed this from a lot of the offical and unoffical talk. Examples, like
"How can you support Candidate X, when he feels this way about Issue Y." or particular democrats trumpet their platform on one particular issue, or policy. To me, this seems very one-track-minded. Almost too focused.

Republicans, I've also found, tend to move in policy (when they have to) but prefer to look long term. ("Sure, I'll conceede this particular point A and point B to you, but as long as these other points C-Z are agreed upon, and we can tackle these other two points later. Just as long as the ball stays rolling.") In this case, its philosophy thining, not policy thinking.

It just might be the DNC needs to focus on the big picture again, and not the individual tasks to get there. Because it looks like the entire party is stuck in the weeds and not on the roadbed. (to borrow an analogy)

I guess in my mind one of the things the USA stands for no state religion, and that means no state support of any particular set of beliefs. I was reading on another blog about something to the affect of Jews knowing that Christians tolerated other religions. To me that sounds kind of like "Well, you know how Uncle/Aunt X is. But their family so we tolerate them." We all have our values. As an Orthodox Jews I highly value what I feel is the truth in terms of G-d and the moral laws.

The US isn't about tolerating religous beliefs; it is about allowing them to grow and prosper unhindered, even when the run counter to ours, as long as what is being expressed isn't otherwise illegal. I'm not worried about someone else's beliefs in where I may spend eternity; I'm not buying into their belief system. I do care that my child or my grandchild is made to feel wrong becuse s/he doesn't want to pray to a god not believed in (as has happened in certain areas even recently). Or because the child doesn't want to recite the pledge because, according to their religious standards, one shouldn't take an oath, period.

And even worse than the child being made to feel wrong is the child being victimized or fearing vicitmization. As I stated in a private conversation, my father was forced to pray to Jessus; forced. He didn't; he moved his lips without uttering a prayer, but to bring back prayer to schools? How is it possible to safeguard when even when it is illegal in certain areas to do so, people have prayed publically in the schools and made fun of those who don't?

Think of it this way; what if Chritianity slips into the minority. Would you feel plurality is okay if the X-mas tree gave way to another religious icon? And if the holidays that one got off from school and work followed another religous calendar?
And though you were free to worship as you saw fit on the days you held dear to your heart, you had to use personal days to enjoy them, and everyone treated it as some sort of favor to you that you could take off in the first place?

One year in high school (and this was a college preparatory school. One didn't get in unless one did well on the SATS and such. And I mean well.)and it was I believe my history teacher, announced in class that over the Rosh Hashanah holidays anyone taking off had a report to do or something extra to do because, in her words "it's the Jewish new year and all you do is eat and party so we would have time to do the extra work." I forgive most people for not knowing that we don't just eat and we certainly don't party, that it is a solemn day , and that religous Jews don't write, or use electricity and we spend a significant amount of time praying; but this was the history teacher. Did she know that little about a sizeable porportion of her student class?

One year the schools closed so much for snow days that there was a possiblity that they would have to open up on Saturday. Not Sunday of course, when everyone could go, but Saturaday. And that of course could cause problems for some teachers who were religious, such as my friend.

Maybe there is a bunch of bitterness that is only coming out now that I am away from all that. It is so pleasant being in a country where one's own holidays take center stage.

Well, personally, I think it has gotten to the point where Christians are being made to feel bad for being Christian. Look at all the newspaper articles being negative about the "religious" right. Look at all the mainstream media lumping Christians together as "evangelicals". Listen to the liberal pundits calling Bush a fundamentalist on par with the Taliban.
And while I admit it is hard to truly project how you would feel in a certain situation, I don't think I'd have a problem with another religious icon replacing the Christmas Tree or the Cross as the most commonly-seen religious symbol, per se. I think I would have a problem with the idea of enough immigrants not becoming assimilated enough that their culture takes over the US melting pot, but it it came from within through willing conversions, I don't think I'd have a problem with it.
Now, I do have a problem with forcing people to pray to Jesus. Even being forced to pray is wrong.
Was it an overzealous teacher rather than policy, though?
Not that it makes the pressure any less real, but if it was just an overzealous teacher, there are easier steps to fixing it. That seems roughly analogous to your having no problem with politicians and govt officials feeling pressure to not express religious belief, i.e., there are pressures to conform that are very real despite what actually might be written down.
Which is one of the many reasons I started this whole discussion: I think we are going too far down the path of eliminating public expression of religious faith...while I don't want to return to forced prayers in school, I wouldn't mind at least allowing prayer in school; and if you allow minority and gay and Jewish groups to organize in school, you should also allow Bible studies to be formed.
And, hey, if the only good this thread of talk has done is let you vent a little bitterness safely, then it was worth it! :)
It can be hard to control the discussion if someone wants to be a jerk, but I hope I can always keep this a place where people can express honest feelings safely.

I wonder if your last line might not reveal something....no matter what pluralistic or secular society we create here in the US, it is still nicer to be in a society whose beliefs and values largely mirror your own. Not homogeneous to the point of calcification, hopefully, but the more values held in common, the easier the process of governing the whole is.
This is the basic argument against multiculturalism...I'm not on-board with it yet, but thoughts like what you just uttered are fairly persuasive.
As is the idea that no minority group ever succeeded in the United States until the managed to assimilate to the whole.
But that's another topic.

Alex says: "Wars of all kinds, military, cultural and those of the class variety, are begun and fought by absolutists and phony 'patriots' of all stripes."
Sorry. Silly ststments like that should be challenged whenever they are made. Some wars are fought so that people like Alex can write what they want. Maybe someday Alex will be right, but not now.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Um. weren't many of the first Europeans pagans? And I remember reading somewhere that some parts of Europe were first settled by Jews...don't know where then or much else about that last bit.

There was an interesting post on the issue of religion and government that contained several amusing spins that made it very suitable for posting. It doesn't add any weight to either side of the discussion, but is instructive and enjoyable to read. http://www.haloscan.com/comments/notherbob2/110147695477704788/
[sarcasm/humor alert] I think that I had better switch sides and give Nathan a hand. He is getting the worst of it.

Oops! Sorry. I meant: http://page1of3.blogspot.com/2004/11/faith-based-project-beats-badly.html

Rachel Ann,
Of course. Christianity didn't begin until 2000 years ago, and didn't spread all the way up to England for more than 1000 years after that.
But the point is that the European nations owe their existence, form, principles, etc more to Christianity than to paganism. The EU Constitution currently forbids them to acknowledge that. If a nation truly thinks that Paganism and the Jewish religion are important parts of their history, they are currently forbidden to acknowledge that, too. All these 1m people want is the right to acknowledge actual history rather than eradicate and rewrite significant parts of it to please atheists.

I guess I am at a loss at to what they would say and how they would say it in their official documents. I do think history ought to be taught truthfully; but I didn't think the roots of government in most European countries started out as Christain. I am not a history buff; just some mild reading here and there so I could very well be quite wrong on the issue. Still, as many of the European countries have an official state religion, what is the reason for wanting the charters to also state they were formed on Christian principles? I am not trying to be argumentative, I am really trying to understand why they wish it. The countries contstiutions aren't banned from stating it are they?

Israel for instance, acknowledges its roots in Judaism; but we are the only Jewish country that exists and our existence is contantly threatened.

I can understand various countries wanting to acknowledge their religious roots; but why is it necessary for the EU to acknowledge this? The EU as a whole wasn't started as a Christian. Correct? What are the nations as individula nations being denied the right to affirm? I guess that is what is confusing me.

It's not necessary, as in it should be a requirement to put in Christian language.
But a significant portion of the population wants it acknowledged. Since it will make no difference in the actual laws, why should the EU refuse to let them make the nod toward history?
It's like the ACLU suing to remove the cross from the Los Angeles county (city?) seal...doing so is a short-sighted and idiotic decision to ignore that the area was settled first by Catholic missionaries, in order to sanitize even the appearance of religion out of govt.
Simply put, there are two ways to deal with religion in govt.
1) You can totally restrict "religion", which not only infringes on freedom of religious expression (not in the EU constitution, I don't think, but still in ours), but also establishes the trappings of atheism as the default. The problem with this is it assumes religion is somehow worse than other belief systems...but every belief system is based on unprovable assumptions, and so establishing any belief system over all others is a bad move.
2) The other thing you can do is allow a pluralistic experssion of belief systems, and pragmatically allow the govt and members of govt to express their beliefs, and assign tax dollars in any way the majority supports, subject to judicial oversight. That leaves it up to all sides to argue their position to get the majority support, and for voting to get the party in power to make judicial appointments in line with your views. While an extreme majority of US citizens are religious, I have full confidence that no one could ever get more than a handful of support for overturning the establishment clause; but I do think it would be better to get back to a strict Constructionist viewpoint, in which the Constitution were again taken at its word, instead of assuming the implied additions. Thus, we would get back to Congress not being able to pass a law that establishes an official religion, which is obviously more in line with the framers' intent than preventing govt officials from saying "Merry Christmas!" The best part is that politicians would no longer have to separate their personal beliefs from their official positions, like Sen. Kerry felt compelled to do with abortion.

The EU apparently tried to impose the first, whereas these petitioners are trying to push for the second option. It should be obvious which one I prefer.

Seriously Nathan, please name one official who was prevented from saying "Merry Christmas." Who sued them and on what grounds? Being afraid to say it because you're a squirrelly politician is not the same as being oppressed, mind you.

It's not that I know that this did not happen, I just seriously doubt it.

Well, what I heard is probably urban legend, and I'm too lazy to try and google for it...[grin]

But here's a parallel example. Remember when McD's french fries used to be good? You could even eat them cold. But there was an obesity scare in the early 90s, and the government started pushing 'healthy diets' and changed the menu in all the government-run eating places, and soon all the fast food chains started switching from animal fat to vegetable fat for frying.
Was there a law passed? I don't think so. ANd it probably wasn't even quite that smooth.
But a very vocal minority of the population made a big stink about animal fats and heart disease, and to avoid any chance at a lawsuit, all the fast food chains changed their food. Now we have crappy fries, and people are still complaining McDs made them fat. So what have we gained?
McDs also used to put everything in Styrofoam containers. But environmental groups didn't like that, and raised a stink, back in the 80s, I think. The environment was a big topic then, and judges started passing down verdicts against the polluters...so McDs changed and stopped using styrofoam. But they switched to waxed and plasticized paper that is probably more harmful to the environment than styrofoam. And Gore still blames the US for global warming. Again, what have we won there?
Another example: In the 70s, when junk environmental science was still in its infancy, the environmental groups got everyone all scared about what CFCs were doing to the ozone layer, and so got all the freon refigerant units made illegal. This is one example where there was a law passed. So now air conditioning/refrigeration isn't as cold and is far less energy-efficient, and the ozone layer fluctuates right along with the solar wind, as it always did, before junk science skewed data for political points. So what did that do for us besides waste alot of money that made the economy worse than it could have been...?

Now here we are, and secularists are rocking the boat about religion in govt. But we made it 228 years to this point without worrying about the cross in the LA seal, or whether the Boy Scouts can meet on military bases. But when I complain about the ACLU in these cases, I'm told that there must be more separation between Church and State or else a Theocracy will take over! Gasp!

Before you react, I realize that no, that's not what you were saying, Susie. In fact, you seemed to take a very libertarian view of it...but that's the stimulus behind my posts.

The point of the examples I just gave is that the way our society works, if you work to eradicate something out of government, since government is a subset of society, it will have an impact on society. At worst, the only way to truly eradicate it out of government is to eradicate it out of society completely. You may not want to do that. But one of the other commenters on these threads does have a problem with "In God We Trust" being on our currency. I've been trying to explain my view to you, but you really aren't my direct opponent in this. But I do want you to realize that there are people more extreme than you, just as I realize there are more people more extreme than me. The thing is, if the Theocrat movement ever started getting the upper hand at establishing a state religion, I'd switch sides and fight against 'em.
But even there we get into problems of definition, because merely threatening to send the issue of abortion rights back to the states, or passing a Definition of Marriage Amendment (despite the exceedingly democratic process such an amendment would undergo) is seen by many people as de facto evidence of a Theocracy imposing its will.

I'll leave you with one final example. As I walked around the military department store today, I couldn't find a single roll of gift-wrapping paper that had a Christian theme. 30 years ago it would have been split 75/25 or 60/40 in favor of religious themes. Society has changed to become more secular; I don't think it's made things better for anyone.

Not to be a -b-, but it's hard enough these days knowing what's true and what's a lie without bloggers adding more noise to the cacophony. I know you were just using it as an example, but it unnecessarily hurts your case when you don't check things out or exaggerate to make a point. You have a good argument to make and I would hate to see it damaged by innaccurate info. And more importantly, *I'm* counting on you to be as honest as you can be.

O.K., I'll get off my obnoxious high horse now.

:)

[grin]
Point taken, and not [-b-]-y at all.

I'll try to be more careful to identify my rhetorical devices, or better yet, avoid them altogether.

« Hide Comments

Happy Thanksgiving!

Hope that your day is great & you have lots to be thankful for. I know that I do!

Happy Thanksgiving from me too!

« Hide Comments

Uhm, could it be that city hall's religious demonstrations come out of my taxes (in addition to violating the First Amendment), and TV channels don't? And that leading prayers in public school is government establishment of religion? These aren't even controversial arguments anymore.

"It bothers me that if the overall thrust of the secularization move gets its way, the Peanuts Christmas and Thanksgiving Specials will have to be banned, censored, or modified."

I don't think that the overall thrust of secularization will have Peantus Christmas or Thanksgiving specials banned, etc. That kind of programming is private programming, albeit over licensed airwaves. Regardless, the broadcast of that kind of programming isn't government endorsed. Religious programming should be available for those that want it, but so should non-religious programming.

The typical theist straw-man is to accuse non-believers of trying to remove religion from the 'public square.' That is entirely false. We just want religion out of our government. We don't want our schools teaching religious doctrine. We don't want our tax dollars to pay for proselytizing organizations and religious displays. What theists do with their own property and broadcast channels is up to them. Why should I fund your religion's activities?

The Owner's Manual,
Not necessarily. There are cases of Post Office managers and the like who have purchased displays with their own money and been banned from setting them up.
...and I could as easily argue that putting up a Santa Claus symbol but not a religious symbol is tax money going toward a belief system I don't agree with...
Remember, my assertion is that all belief systems are equal, and so atheist or secular as the default is just as bad as Christian being the default.
I think that officials should be able to express whatever view they have. Since the nation is mostly Christian, we'd have mostly Christian expressions. So what? I'd fight like a tiger to make sure B'hai and Wicca and Muslim religions would be able to express theirs, too.

See, rather than banning a nativity scene, I'd allow every religious group that wants to pony up the money to put their own display up.

If it ever got to be too crowded in the Town Square (or where ever) or if some of the displays began to be disrespectful or combative (like Satanism seems to specifically use Christian symbols in profane ways), then maybe we'd have to make some rules or try a different tack. But there doesn't seem to be any danger of that yet.

a-[e] catches something you missed, as well: that "public" airwaves are licensed and regulated by the government. Thus, tax dollars are involved in that.

a-[e],
You don't think the overall thrust of secularization will have the Peanuts specials banned. I do. There's no way to prove either of us right, except by waiting and seeing. Oh, and one thing you could do is pledge to join the theists in fighting if a group ever does try to ban.

It's actually not a straw-man that non-believers are trying to remove religion from the 'public square', because it is happening. Right now. Obviously, our different viewpoints of the nature/importance/validity of religion lead to different conclusions, but even if you don't feel the push to remove the "Under God" from the pledge is wrong, I do.
We can disagree as to the significance/implication of all the things I've linked, but that hardly makes it a straw-man.
We also disagree on the nature of the Intelligent Design theory. You equate it with Creationism, I don't. You also equate opposition to teaching only Evolution Bad Science Crap-Theory with trying to impose Non-science Creationism-only education. I don't. There are some groups trying to impose Creationism-only. But you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking I don't actively oppose them.
Generalization is a two-edged sword. I can recognize the horribly fatal flaws of Evolution without trying to impose a theocracy. You should be able to recognize that in a like manner, your opinion of secularization and agnostic government is not necessarily shared by the ACLU and other people initiating lawsuits. If you aren't trying to fight for what I oppose, you aren't really my opponent, but that doesn't make my arguments straw-men. I do think the ACLU is trying to ban religion completely from the 'public square'. There is a recent escalation in attempts to stifle religion. secularization may be approaching the level you prefer, and you are certainly entitled to fight for your views. But I'm entitled to fight for mine, too, especially since we have a good 180 years of national history that provides evidence that a significantly-religious society without undue religious influence on government is doable. It's only been in the last 40 years or so that we've really pushed toward a secular society, and we've had a significant rise in all sorts of social problems with it. Drugs, STDs, AIDS, teen pregnancies, abortion, murder, violence...
(not that there weren't problems before, too, but things seem worse these days compared to my youth).
All this begs the question: what would you do if a group was trying to slippery-slope our society into not being able to express religion anywhere outside their own home?

My apologies if this didn't read totally smoothly. I've got bunches of ideas jumbling around in my head, and they don't always come out coherently. The overall tone should be: lightly self-deprecating, recognizing that we have some fundamentally different assumptions, and that we are delving into some highly subjective areas in which it is nearly impossible to "prove" anyone's point.
To a certain extent, this is merely an academic thinking exercise.

*****Oh, and one thing you could do is pledge to join the theists in fighting if a group ever does try to ban.*****

Sign me up. Although I'm an anti-activist, I can confidently agree to this because I KNOW that such people do not exist. I know quite a few far-left, atheistic radicals, and none of them would be bothered by a Christmas Peanuts. You know who this *does* sound like though? Those nuts who got the screenings of "Saving Private Ryan" yanked because it offended their sensibility. You want to talk about re-injecting common sense? How absurd was that? Did you call up the AFA in protest of that nonsense?

*****especially since we have a good 180 years of national history that provides evidence that a significantly-religious society without undue religious influence on government is doable*****

You've confused society with government. In a significantly religious "society," every yard can have a nativity scene in it while the post office does not. No one has ever filed suit to require that a private citizen remove religious displays from their private property. Society is allowed as much religious expression as it likes. What you are arguing for, on the other hand, is religious displays on government property. It's not a half bad idea that everyone should be able to display their beliefs on public land, but it seems rather more sensible for people to express their private beliefs on private land. If people want to gather together to join in religious expression in public, they can do so as well, but they cannot do so with public money, or with public property, because that money + property belong to EVERYONE, including the atheists. That means that if the atheists and Christians cannot agree that the property should be put to X, Y, or Z use, the property is not used that way. Sometimes the atheists will lose out, sometimes the Christians will. That's the nature of sharing.

*****All this begs the question: what would you do if a group was trying to slippery-slope our society into not being able to express religion anywhere outside their own home?*****

That really depends on the specific circumstances. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

Anyway, a different question:

You seem to believe that so long as the government doesn't put pen to paper and formally proclaim a particular religion that of the state, the intent of the founding fathers has been accomplished. This becomes obviously untrue if you think about the fact that written law is completely unnecessary to the establishment of a theocracy. If a simple majority of the Supreme Court and Congress were far right-wing Christians, and we had such a president as well, they could write all manner of laws outlawing birth-control, requiring that women live only in the houses of their fathers or husbands, making adultery punishable by death, etc., etc. without once writing a law proclaiming that Christianity is the religion of America.

I guess my point is that the slippery slope goes both ways, and the only way to prevent theocracy or enforced atheism is for the government to remain completely silent on religion.

Serial posting to add:

Oops! Forgot the referred to question, although it was implied.

Who draws the line for when religion has "undue influence?"

Wouldn't it be better for the government to remain completely uninfluenced by religion, and for religions to seek influence in society by virtue of their precepts?

Good points. I'll try to hit the main ones.

First, this one: but they cannot do so with public money, or with public
property, because that money + property belong to EVERYONE, including the
atheists.
That really gets problematic, because what you are saying here is that any group of people gets veto rights on what can be done with tax dollars. If atheists can veto tax dollars going to a religious program, then pro-life groups should be able to veto tax dollars going to abortion, doves can veto tax dollars for the military, conservatives can veto tax dollars going for welfare.
Look, govt does what the majority of people want, for the good of the people, and not even always the direct good.
The best example is Sports Stadiums. Lots of local and state govts use public funds and sometimes even public land to build football and baseballs stadiums. Not everyone goes to the games, in fact, the actual fans probably are a distinct minority. So why does it happen? Because the govt knows that having a sports team brings in all sorts of revenue, and also helps give a sense of pride and identity to a location. There are all sorts of tangible and intangible reasons to put money into a sports stadium rather than increasing welfare and other public programs.

In the same manner, there is nothing in the physical laws of the universe that make having a theocracy automatically bad. However, a cursory glance at history shows that the closer Church and State are entwined, the worse it is on people. On the other hand, a quick glance also shows that having a completely secular government is even worse.
Many atheists do understand mercy, altruism, the value of human life, kindness, etc. But there is nothing in a secular view that makes it necessary. Remove religion from govt, and you get inhumanity and atrocity.
But that's arguable. Not as much from my point of view, but that's okay.
The point is, there can be as much or as little connection between govt and religion as the people want and the people can handle.
I think we've gone too far toward secularism. You think we haven't gone far enough.

Um, I don't think I've so much confused govt with society as see them as inseparable halves of the same coin. Society determines the type of govt we have. The govt isn't on some pedestal somewhere else, it is made up of people who grew up in society, who have friends and relatives not in government, who watch TV and movies and read books and newspapers. If an attitude sweeps through society, govt will change. Likewise, if the people govt a certain mindset, laws will be passed/changed/overturned to reflect that mindset. Look at the anti-sodomy laws. For more than 100 years no one saw any reason to change them. Now the courts were overturning them left and right before the Supreme Court took care of the last of them. The courts are and always were a part of govt, so did the govt change, or society?
Both.
(I have no problems with the sodomy laws being overturned, btw)

the only way to prevent theocracy or enforced atheism is for the government to remain completely silent on religion.
This is the crux of what is either our disagreement or our misunderstanding...I'm still not sure which it is.
See, if the govt remains completely silent on religion, that sounds to me as if it has embraced atheism as default.

Like I have said: I think the govt shouldn't say anything if the Post Office manager wants to put up a nativity scene with his own money, nor should it restrict other religions from putting up their own display. It should step in to protect those displays from vandalism and resolve disputes over what might be considered disrespectful to another religion.
If that's what you mean by "remain silent", then we are largely suffereing under a misunderstanding.

I have a feeling, however, that you feel "remain silent" means something different.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to remain completely uninfluenced by religion, and for religions to seek influence in society by virtue of their precepts?
This I agree with, and that's what I'm trying to do right now. [grin]

Who draws the line for when religion has "undue influence?"
That is the trick, and I admit my answer is somewhat glib:
The people do. And the people do so exactly in these sort of arguments, but also in who they vote for in govt elections.
So, President Bush is open about how his faith is central to his life and thought process, and so is central to his performance of his duties.
51% of the voters, 60 million citizens, don't have a problem with that. And yet Democrats screamed about Bush violating Church and State separation (despite Clinton actually mentioning Jesus more times in official speeches, despite Kerry campaigning from pulpits several Sundays in a row, and Clinton seeking counseling from Rev Jesse Jackson for his sexual infidelity while on duty).
Other people (although probably not all of the 57 million who voted Democrat) didn't like it. Fine. They don't get a veto, but they remain able to try and convince people to see it their way.

So in our case: I have no problem with tax dollars going to faith-based charities that don't proselytize, I have no problem with govt officials saying Merry Christmas, I have no problem with prayers at public school football games, I have no problem with leaving "Under God" in the pledge, I have no problem with the Boy Scouts getting to meet on military bases, I have no problem with nativity displays on public property.
About the only thing I really want to change from what we have now (other than overturning a few recent ACLU victories, including the recent one keeping Boy Scouts off of military bases) is that I would like to see less restrictions on govt officials expressing their belief.

You are welcome to keep trying to convince me otherwise! [grin]

*****If atheists can veto tax dollars going to a religious program, then pro-life groups should be able to veto tax dollars going to abortion*****

Sounds good to me, although as an aside pro-life groups argue that abortion is not a religious issue.

*****doves can veto tax dollars for the military, conservatives can veto tax dollars going for welfare*****

The founding fathers specifically feared an intermingling of church and state. While it's arguable that war and welfare are religious issues, until religion is invoked in defense of, or in argument against them, I don't see how they trigger 1st amendment concerns.

*****Look, govt does what the majority of people want, for the good of the people, and not even always the direct good.*****

That may be the case now, but it shouldn't be. The government should doing things like maintaining armies, ensuring fluid and fair interstate commerce, building roads, managing our national parks, and keeping law and order. I don't know they're involved in social issues at all.

*****In the same manner, there is nothing in the physical laws of the universe that make having a theocracy automatically bad.*****

I'm not sure why you're referring to the laws of the universe when the only relevant law is the Constitution. We are debating the meaning of that law, and while examinations of the Constitution's legislative history may be useful in ascertaining the intent of the drafters, the laws of the universe are not.

*****On the other hand, a quick glance also shows that having a completely secular government is even worse.*****

So you are arguing that having a secular government is responsible for the coarsening of society? I have several problems with that argument:

1. The fabric of society is woven by the individuals of which that society is composed; so long as the individuals remain pious, planting a nativity scene in the post office's tree-lawn will be the least of their demonstrations of faith.

2. It presupposes that secularism has the power to rob people of their religious faith or their freedom to express their beliefs, neither of which is true. If the government made not one religious reference ever again, would it influence your belief in Christ? I hope not. Theocracies, on the other hand, oppress those whose consciences dictate something other than state doctrine. That is why they are unacceptable.

*****Many atheists do understand mercy, altruism, the value of human life, kindness, etc. But there is nothing in a secular view that makes it necessary.*****

Actually, there is at least as much incentive for an atheist to behave properly as there is for a Christian. Christians rely on their belief that the fate of their very souls is at stake. But they also rely rather heavily on the redemptive power of God's grace to encourage them to continue to strive to avoid sin, despite their continuing inability to do so. Similarly, the atheists which I know who are good people are very much motivated by their belief that with every action they are creating the world in which they must live and die. They recognize that when they refuse to be merciful, they create people who will refuse them and others mercy; that when they think only of themselves, they encourage others to do so as well; that there are immediate and inescapable consequences to immorality. So while Christians and atheists may be motivated by different things, both attach moral significance to their behavior. They may, of course, differ on what qualifies as moral behavior, but I believe that most Christians such as yourself might very well be amazed at just how similar your response to any given moral dilemma would be to a principled atheist.

*****Remove religion from govt, and you get inhumanity and atrocity.*****

Again, you are presupposing that a people's morality stands or falls with the government. Does yours? Why do you imagine that anyone else's has? Why do you argue that a government which is silent on religious matters is to blame rather than a failure of the church to inspire and captivate the populace?

*****You think we haven't gone far enough.*****

Actually, I think we're fine, and that people arguing to remove God from money and the pledge are idiots and should learn to pick their friggin' battles, (pardon my french) but anyway.

*****Um, I don't think I've so much confused govt with society as see them as inseparable halves of the same coin.*****

Have you read Thomas Paine's common sense? He explains a vision of the role of government which I rather agree with. You can read about it here: http://www.bartleby.com/133/1.html
Particularly relevant is this: "[w]herefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expence and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

*****See, if the govt remains completely silent on religion, that sounds to me as if it has embraced atheism as default.*****

My position is that souls and consciences embrace or reject atheism. Governments should provide the security and freedom for each person to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. Beyond that, they should be silent on religion because it is not the government's job to encourage or discourage people one way or the other what to believe.

*****If that's what you mean by "remain silent", then we are largely suffereing under a misunderstanding.*****

If the government neither supported nor discouraged any religion, I would be happy. However, when a government official erects a display on public property that supports one religion and one religion only, the government is supporting that religion. Government officials, when acting in their capacity as government officials, (especially when on public property) *are* the government. In that capacity, they are being paid to serve, and are beholden to, every constituent, atheists included. THAT is why they cannot engage in overtly religious activities, OF ANY KIND.

If they want to go home and cover their lawn with religious displays, more power to them. If they want to go door to door and minister, more power to them. If they want to exude their Christian nature and the happiness that is brought about by living a life with Christ, more power to them. If the government tried to prevent them from doing so, then it would be embracing atheism and I would have as serious a problem with it as I would if it embraced Christianity.

*****This I agree with, and that's what I'm trying to do right now. [grin]*****

[frown] Then why are we talking about government instead of the wonder of walking a path with Jesus and how best that can be communicated?

*****So, President Bush is open about how his faith is central to his life and thought process, and so is central to his performance of his duties. 51% of the voters, 60 million citizens, don't have a problem with that.*****

I agree. But if the religious right makes the mistake of believing that this means that the American public wants more religious influence from their government, they are in for a rude awakening. The reason Bush won is precisely because Americans have no problem with other people *being* religious. They will not, however, stand for a government that meddles in religious matters. While I agree that most of what you support will be tolerated, not much beyond it will.

As for nativity scenes on public property, if those are tolerated, it is more a result of public apathy than support. I, for instance, find it troubling but would certainly not make an effort to have them removed.

You know, I don't think anything I've said or done deserves a fisking.

In any case, you apparently want your views to be accepted as the default. I don't agree, and talking about it on my blog is one part of the persuasion process. I've offered several different "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree" opportunities, but you don't seem to want to take them. I'm a little tired of arguing minor points since our views and assumptions on even the most basic aspects of this issue are incompatible. Both have valid antecedents, and both are well within tolerances for social norms.

Maybe in a month or so I'll be in a mood to pick this up again, but I'm just about talked out. I think I've made my position clear, and you certainly have, so that's about it.

Stop by often and leave comments on anything that strikes your fancy. You are always welcome here.

*****You know, I don't think anything I've said or done deserves a fisking.*****

I don't know what that is, but I'm sorry if I've done it to you.

*****I've offered several different "looks like we'll have to agree to disagree" opportunities, but you don't seem to want to take them.*****

I must have missed them. I thought you were happy discussing this. Sorry for dragging it out when you didn't want to talk about it anymore. I agree to disagree.

*****You are always welcome here.*****

Thank you. Happy Holidays.

Yeah, I figured I was probably getting overly sensitive. My apologies.

"Fisking" is when you take someone's entire written text and break it up, responding point by point. The advantage is that you make sure you address every point. The bad part of it is that it often results in statements being taken out of context, and it allows the fisker the chance to consciously or unconsciously do zingers that make the original writer look bad. It gives the appearance of a conversation with the best lines going to the person doing the fisking.
When done deliberately, it is a very unfair way to continue a discussion.
If you've never heard of that method, then there's no way you could have been doing it deliberately, so I was overreacting. Again, my apologies.

One of the things I try to keep in mind is that so much is lost in "typed-only" conversations. If you don't know someone well, you don't recognize the turns of phrases intended to soften statements, and you definitely can't see body language, tone of voice, facial expressions, etc. A phrase said with a grin means something totally different than the same phrase said with a scowl.

But sometimes I forget that.

The other thing that was frustrating me is in my personality, I like to just talk about broad topics, giving a few specific examples for support, but I really hate discussing finer and finer points, especially if we haven't resolved the overarching dispute. I think the term for that is "chasing down rabbit holes", because in trying to nail down a minor point, the major point gets totally lost. I felt like that's what was happening. But if you took the time to read, consider, and write, I wanted to acknowledge that effort by reading, considering, and responding.
But with so many people writing so much, I couldn't keep up. That was what was making me tired, and that's no one's fault but my own, and no one could have known. I probably phrased that complaint badly. The dangers of blogging include getting burned out, I've seen.

The thing is, this is just one topic among many I can discuss. If you look through my archives, you won't see many articles regarding Separation of Church and State, because I'm not a one-trick pony. I hope you still feel comfortable in discussing any of the issues I post. I think I'll be posting some stuff about China soon, so that will provide another opportunity for a good gab-fest.

-Nathan

Man, I am gonna hit this thread when I get home. (bleary-eyed as we speak)

I have a few thoughts, but want to read through all the comments before I do so...

Wow! Nathan, great amout of discussion :D

Rae,
Your entry into the fray would be most appreciated.

Fisking, huh? Well you learn something new everyday. Do you know why "fisk" was chosen as a way to describe this process? It seems to have no relationship to the thing which it describes. Weird.

Anyway, I promise not to do that again. It should be easy enough and will save a lot of time.

:)

Fisking isn't so much derived from the proper word "fisk" as defined by Websters: To run about; to frisk; to whisk.; its more of a counter-culture jargon adopted by the internet/hacker community:

This is one of the better definitions I've seen:

verb. To deconstruct an article on a point by point basis in a highly critical manner. Derived from the name of journalist Robert Fisk, a frequent target of such critical articles in the blogosphere (qv).

Jeremy is 100% correct.
I should also add that most people don't have a problem with "fisking". I hate it, and refuse to use it. It seems to me to be more of a rhetorical device that artificially gives an appearance of superiority. It's like being able to stop time and think of the perfect comeback and then deliver it as a zinger with the appearance of being more clever...
Or maybe I just have an inferiority complex! [grin]
I do freely admit that the difference between responding to all points and fisking is very fine indeed. That's why I try to use direct quotes at a minimum and respond to the gist. It also gives me a chance to restate what I understood in my own words, which most experts say is a good way of increasing the success of your communication. I know that there is little more frustrating than seeing someone quote you verbatim...but totally misunderstand what you meant by it. :)

« Hide Comments

*So I erased it.

**This is the favorite technique of adherents to the Evolution religion.

***In fact, based on our nation's history and the actual official documents that form the basis of our government, I think we actually have a very strong position to turn the tide back toward a more religious (but religiously pluralistic and tolerant) society.

« Hide Comments

I have no problem with the government "paying the salaries of military chaplains," so long as they provide pay for rabbis and muslim clerics as well where such are desired, or with it "building chapels on military bases," so long as it provides synagogues and mosques if such are in demand. Certainly you do not take having "In God We Trust" on the currency as religious? If it is intended as a religious expression, it is a thoroughly misguided one, as there is no more worldly a thing as money, and perhaps no better way to break several Commandments at once than to invoke God on our cash. Opening sessions of Congress with prayer can hardly be objected to by anyone but the Congressmen and women themselves. If and when Congress is populated by muslims or atheists, they can open their sessions with what *they* see fit for themselves as well. I see the phrase "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience as another non-religious expression. I would not, if I were you, rely on such changeable things as what is "constitutionally sound and appropriate," as that tends to vary quite a bit over time, regardless of what time you're talking about, e.g. 1880-1905 OR 1980-2005. And maybe I'm just dull, but what distinguishes a faith-based charity that does not proselytize from a secular one? What the people who run the charity carry around carefully closeted in their hearts? Nonsense. Faith-based charties are merely extensions of the church, formed to do the church's work. As such, they should not be funded with public money except that which they can collect in their plate on Sunday morning.

"Got it? Note the capitalizations implying proper nouns. Once you understand the full implications, you should see that deflates the majority of atheist/secular arguments in one stroke"

Really? But the very article you quote also includes a statement that various Constitutional scholars interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting favoritism in action or policy. Let's face it, the Supreme Court has been fairly clear about this interpretation as well.

A proper State position on Church and religion would be an agnostic one. By agnostic I mean the State should expressly have no interest in matters of faith or religion. In short, the State should remain mute and exist without official reference to deities. To do otherwise is provides the basis for a State Church.

The State has no business forming an opinion, endorsing or denying any deities. The State has no business endorsing or denying various religious teachings as such. Therefore, pledges including reference to gods, mentions of gods on money, forced prayer in schools, commandments on State-owned buildings and funds to Bush's proselytizing faith-based organizations are improper because they provide funds and endorsement to one or more deities, religious beliefs and religions. That endorsement implicitly provides governmental recognition and validation to specific religious doctrines at the expense other beliefs.

The State's action creates a de facto State religion (Church) of a new State demonination, no matter how watered down or seemingly inclusive of other religions, by specifically endorsing religious belief such as "under God" or "In God We Trust." Clearly, this is violation of the Establishment clause. Again, the State has no business in this realm and should refrain.

Why are the religious so terrified of an agnostic State? Such a State wouldn't require the citizens to believe anything (religious freedom) and wouldn't use their money to support religious expressions that all can't agree on. An agnostic State furthermore wouldn't mean that morals would be forced outside the halls of government or that individuals and private organizations couldn't express their faith in the 'public square.' The only conceivable reason that theists keep trying to force religion from the public domain and into the realm of government is to force the rest of us into submission. This is exactly why we need explicit and strict separation of Church and State.

[No saracasm/humor, well, maybe humor) alert] "Religion" is nothing more than a sub-heading under which we group certain types of similar belief systems. To base government upon only one specific belief system is dangerous, because then other belief systems are derided and excluded.” Nathan

See how silly everyone has been being? All you silly Red Sox and Yankees fans. We have no problem here at all. So, since the Yankees were founded prior to the Red Sox, from now on we will play yankeeball in yankee stadiums using yankeerules. The Yankee Hall of Fame will be in Yankeetown. The yankeetickets will be purchased with yankeemoney and prior to each game we will all sing Hail To The Yankees. You, of course, being a Red Sox fan, don’t have to sing. Just pretend that you are not there. Part of your ticket costs, even if the Yankees are not playing, will be used to build a Yankee clubhouse in each stadium to cater to the needs of Yankee fans and to provide pin-striped officials to attend all league games and to minister to Yankee fans who might attend the game. Another portion will be used to provide a Yankee representative at all meetings of the League officials, who will take a few moments prior to each meeting to praise the Yankees and thank them for their contributions to yankeeball. And always remember: all teams are equal in this league. Your team is just as good as any other team and there is no official league team. May the Yankees bless us.
Uh huh. That'll work.

...same words, different understandings...

Never underestimate the possibility that we are just talking past each other.

That goes for all four of us.

I'm kind of carrying on three slightly different conversations with 3 different people on slightly different aspects of the situation. Forgive me if I get confused. I just got finished typing a long response to you, Suzie, and then realized I was responding to something you didn't say.
[sigh]
This would be so much easier over beer.

Here's part of my problem: many of the aspects that Suzie has no problem with are exactly what a-[e] objects to. Should I let you two argue amongst yourself first?
Instead, though, for ease of discussion, I tend to lump you all together as part of the problem I face, in that I'm sure Suzie agrees with a-[e] enough that if a-[e] ever manages to make progress on his goals, Suzie would do nothing to stop him from removing "under God" from the pledge and "In God We Trust" from currency. Even if I'm wrong about Suzie, specifically, there are millions who are described by what I'm saying.
In a battle of opinion over symbols, the direction you are facing has as much to do with battle lines as the actual position you adopt.
In any case, a-[e], when I link an article, it's so you can read all of the discussion, not that I agree with every single word. I said it was a good discussion, not that I endorsed every line in it. Still, I find it highly ironic that you point out, "But the very article you quote also includes a statement that various Constitutional scholars interpret the First Amendment as prohibiting favoritism in action or policy" because you seem to ignore the reverse: various other Constitutional Scholars don't interpret the First Amendment that way. And even the "prohibiting favoritism in action and policy" is subject to interpretation, since I am absolutely arguing that establishing atheism as the default is precisely favoritism in action and policy for one belief system (atheism) over others, and thus violates the freedom of religious expression.
That interpretation, which is held by many Constitutional Scholars as well as many common citizens (whose opinion should not be ignored: we are a nation with a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, remember?), does deflate the majority, though not all, of the atheist/secularist arguments.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean I think any of you are automatically and completely wrong. I don't make appeals to authority with the assumption that the authorities I listen to and agree with are the only experts.
This is a debate. There is quite a bit of gray area.
Simply put, I don't like the direction we are going, and there are enough Constitutional Scholars and intelligent, educated laymen who agree with me that there is no compelling reason for us to concede defeat.

Nathan: Good points, but you're mistaken on a crucial point in my argument. Specifically, I'm in favor of an agnostic government, not an atheistic government. An agnostic government would be one that refuses to take a position or endorse any religion or deity because it has no place making such decisions. Essentially, the government is mute and refrains from religious action and policies. Of course, that does not mean there should be restrictions on believers serving in office.

An atheistic government would explicity deny the existence of god or gods, a position that would be an endorsement of a view of religion. I'm not in favor of that. That, too, would be an establishment of Church, one of non-belief, but an establishment nonetheless.

A secular government need not be atheist, but it should be agnostic and refrain from actions and policies that create a de facto State Church. This failure to refrain is the situation the US government finds itself in now. It should be corrected.

Fair enough.
And another point surely is:
I don't have to persuade you, really, I just have to oppose you (you being: a general "you", mainly the ACLU and judges sympathetic to their cause) and express my opinion. That's what Democracy is all about. You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.

*****You don't need to come to a 100% consensus, you just need a plurality.*****

You are correct that *you* don't have to persuade anyone, but the government, on the other hand, IS beholden to every single last individual citizen. On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent. Whether the ACLU or Pat Robertson understand this or not is irrelevant to its truthfulness.

On matters where reasonable people differ and a consensus
cannot be reached, the government has a duty to remain silent.
Either you didn't type that right, or I'm missing a subtlety, because nothing in the history of this nation has ever gotten 100% agreement on anything. Ever.

You are obviously too intelligent to have meant that, so could explain again or go a little more in depth? I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?
We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported.
So I think I misunderstood what you said.

And as far as the govt being beholden to every single last citizen, I think that also only goes so far. Not every citizen can or will be happy with the decisions of govt. Criminals, specifically, will often be downright dissatisfied at times [understatement]. Taxes are yet another example where the govt doesn't listen to the people directly.

I've always thought that taken as a whole, citizens are like adolescent kids. You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.
So you work to get a plurality, and then you enact your agenda. And if it works, people see that and are happy, even if they weren't happy to begin with. And if it doesn't work, people reject it, even if they were happy to get it in the first place. Which explains the reason why Democrats are losing support despite promising the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars to its special interest groups.

*****I mean, surely you aren't saying that since there wasn't a consensus on Judge Moore's display of the 10 Commandments, the courts had a duty to remain silent, right?*****

Actually neither Moore nor the courts should have been supporting or not supporting religious expression. No monument, no order to have it removed, no court case.

*****We have courts for precisely the purpose of not only making decisions in the absence of 100% consensus but to go against majority consensus
if Congress goes against the Constitution. And we have Congress so that we can get laws passed on isses that aren't 100% supported. So I think I misunderstood what you said.*****

Well, maybe so, but only because you didn't know that I think the government shouldn't be doing half of what it currently does. There is, I believe, a broad consensus for things like maintaining the armed services and law enforcement offices for security.

*****You can't always do whatever people want, you have to make decisions based on what is actually good for the people whether they like it or not.*****

On a local level, I sort of agree, but the further away geographically you get from the governed, the worse this kind of government becomes. That's why I think local government is superior for regulating commerce, or for setting educational standards (or whatever the people in the area want) but I will never agree that the job of govt. (at any level) is to decide what is "good for the people," where religion is concerned. And, quite frankly, I'm surprised that you do. Such an argument could just as easily be used to oppress Christianity as to support it.

Nathan,

ou may be interested in reading this blog http://thewanderingmind.blogspot.com/
which deals with some of the same issues you have been talking about. I wanted to post it to you privately, but couldn't find your e-mail.

« Hide Comments

Wasn't it religious folks who suggested that the anti-gay group was to blame? Maybe I read the article wrong.

Everyone but the police are "religious folks", including the members of the Rainbow Sash Alliance.

The leader of the anti-gay religious group Ushers of the Eucharist said "I don't know who did it...Nobody wants to see church property damaged in the name of an exorcism."

But the rector of the church, who had to be at least in agreement with letting avowed homosexuals take communion, said, "Regardless of why they did it, it was a very disruptive act." The context implied he was accusing a specific group.

And one paragraph specifically accused the anti-gay groups with this: "Schnell said police have no leads, but several religious people familiar with the case said it is probably the work of fringe Catholics who advocate using sacramentals, or holy objects, to cleanse places where gays take communion."
Which religious people? The rector? The leader of the Rainbow Sash Alliance? On the basis of NO factual evidence, these unnamed religious people have smeared private citizens, and the reporter was more than happy to help them do it.
Facts:
1) Someone vandalized a cathedral
2) this cathedral allows homosexuals to take communion freely
3) the vandalization shares some characteristics with an exorcism

There is nothing that points to any of the assumptions made by the reporter, but I guess you don't need facts if you need to advance gay rights. You have to make sure that disapproving of Catholic priests rewriting the Bible is clearly identified as homophobia and hate, you know.

Why isn't it possible that the religious folks stand in support of neither gay rights nor vandalism, but suspect it was the anti-gay group for other reasons? Maybe they don't think gays should be able to take communion, but also think that the particular people in the anti-gay group are exactly the sort of obnoxious people who would engage in such a disruptive act, instead of pursuing their agenda by lawful means.

All I'm saying is that we don't know enough about these "religious folks" to really say one way or the other, and that I think you're being a bit paranoid, even though I think I understand why. I can see why it may appear like bias superficially, and that there is reflexive bias against religious folks, but it's not clear to me that that's what's operating in this situation.

« Hide Comments

Is it just me, or has the ACLU been taking "uppers" or eating their Wheaties.

They seem to be sueing everyone since Bush won the election earlier this month.

Well, I'm assuming it's because the progressive/atheist/secular agenda is being rejected by greater and greater numbers of citizens and voters. They've been able to use activist judges to impose some items, but even those (like Roe v Wade) are imperiled by Supreme Court retirements while a Republican is in the White House. And President Bush made an extremely important move by sending a clear message that democracy will be served; he threatened to throw his support behind a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as only between opposite genders. [please note: the pro-SSM activists distort what he actually said and did, don't they?] The 11 states that amended their state constitutions indicate that President Bush might have the political capital to pull it off over the objections of a distinct but vocal minority...so they've backed off and decided that if they can't win the debate, make sure the debate is never allowed to happen.

Eradicating freedom of religious expression is an appropriate pre-emptive strike, considering their ultimate goals.

I'm just thinking about the backlash in public opinion. The ACLU is getting some bad press (even when its "good press" in the NYTimes - because I believe the Average American can read between the spinlines of the press.) (At least I hope that is true.)

So what would happen if the majority of the public rejects the ACLU (a non-government entity)?

That could be the ultimate end to this path were on.

Personally, I just like to see the sheer ignorance behind statements such as "atheists/secularists were trying to sanitize society for their own sensibilities" - gosh, I never knew I was doing that, particularly given that I think handing out historical American documents, in the context of an American history class (assuming this was the case), is perfectly acceptable and what anyone with a functioning brain might expect.

Now, Andy, don't jump at generalizations. That doesn't advance the discussion at all.

But for the sake of argument, who should I name as the ones trying to suppress free expression of religious values? It's more than just the ACLU. I didn't think George Soros was behind this, too, but there is a disorganized but increasingly coherent attempt to establish an atheist default. Should I blame the van Pattons?
Naming a group is just verbal shorthand for ease of discussion, and should not ever be taken to mean "100% of all people who consider using this term to describe themselves 100% of the time".

For example, remember the flap over Judge Moore's statue/monument of the 10 Commandments? While I disapproved of his refusal to comply with a court order, the complaint was brought by a supposedly-adult lawyer who said she couldn't even bear to see the statue, it upset her so much.

That is exactly the sanitization of a public display for the sensibility of an atheist and/or secularist.

As is someone complaining to remove a nativity scene from City Hall grounds.

As is calling a Christmas tree a "holiday tree".

As is saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas".

As is removing the words "Under God" from the Pledge.

So it's not all atheists, but pretending to not comprehend an easily-understood speech generalization doesn't do anyone any good.

One last reminder: You may be convinced those attempts are all good and proper and in line with the intent of the forefathers in the 1st Amendment. Some legal scholars think so. Enough don't, however, that the standard ACLU opinion of Separation of Church and State is never a slam-dunk, the ACLU's victory against the Boy Scouts notwithstanding.

I think the tide may be turning, however, and future rulings that nativity scenes must be removed and you can't sing Christmas songs in school programs may be considered as ridiculous as some of the "Zero Tolerance" rules that get kids suspended for bring 1" plastic guns to school or for saving someone's life by sharing an asthma inhaler.
It's going to be an interesting and probably messy couple of years, I think...maybe the whole rest of the decade.

« Hide Comments

So, as I understand it, the turkey was real and it was actually the president who was plastic. Is this true?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Lot of religion floating around the blogoshere today. Must be a slow news day. Anyway, what is your take on Kristof's piece in the NYT today? My blog is painfully shy of religious content, inspiring or otherwise. I would like to print your thoughts as a guest blog (yeah, just like Instapundit, envy, envy). Whattayasay? Wait, that implies an endorsement, doesn't it. OK, I will reprint it in full and without comment, how's that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/24/opinion/24kristof.html?oref=login

You are always welcome to quote and link anything I write here.
You are certainly allowed to comment, as well.

If you misquote, fisk, or otherwise get derisive, even that is within the realm of acceptability for me, but expect me to respond with vehemence and indignation! [grin]

I haven't yet read that article....I might not get to it until this evening, but I'll let you know my thoughts.

If you ever want to just wax philosophical off-blog and use the brainfertilizer addy, keep in mind that I can't access it during work hours.

Finally, I think the emphasis on religion and its role in our society is because "morals" and "values" seemed to figure so heavily in this past election. The left is trying understand what this concept of "morals" is and how they can get some without having to embrace religion, and the right is trying to defend its acceptance of religion while trying to insist that it's not really advocating a thecracy.

The battle really was joined when liberals critized President Bush for bringing up God and saying "God put me in this position as President at this time", totally misunderstanding that it was a statement of humility, not aggrandizement. The same liberals never peeped when President Clinton spoke with ordained ministers on how to handle the political ramifications of his philandering, and also never peeped when John Kerry spent a good deal of time campaigning from the pulpit on a good number of Sundays.
The battle only intensified with the "Jesusland" condescension.
So I think we are in for 4 years of battles over "Evolution vs Creationism" (when that's actually a false juxtaposition...), the religious aspects of homosexual marriage (instead of the societal aspects), the role of the 10 Commandments in our legal system and the role of Christian influence in history. It's going to be a messy 4 years, with lots of arguments and hurt feelings. I hope that I can maintain a safe harbor for both sides to meet and talk here. And you, notherbob2, can keep me honest on that if you want to take the responsibility...

« Hide Comments

What, you never had a devine thought while looking at a waterfall or a rainbow?

No, but I saw a doctor after looking at the liquid coming from my nose, once. Does that count?

« Hide Comments

I have occasionally saved some of these messages, as well as the ones that are (seemingly?) nonsensical dada-like messages, as well as the ones that are just random word lists - today I started copying the good parts and pasting them into one notepad file... cool stuff! I did a little googling, and discovered that there are databases of random aphorisms available... am now off to see if I can hook into one...

Also, I have a copy of a very cool article called "Spam for the soul" by Roy Rivenburg, an LA Times writer (I believe), which you could probably google for, or you could email me at drewsy@together.net (at least that is my email address until May 2005)... and I would send you a copy. I just suddenly got very interested in trying to figure out what was going on, tonight... googling got me to your blog...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*Stolen and slightly modified from its original form in a Steven Brust novel, who probably stole and slightly modified it from Sun Tzu or Clausewitz or somebody.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I don't know about you, but one of the base lessons I learned in 1-12 (my unenlightened parents did not send me to K, or maybe it did not exist way back then) was about the Pilgrims. They gave up their country to come to the new world because of ...wait for it... religious persecution.
Now you don't seem to be a persecutor (unless going on about your beliefs constitutes persecution) and subjecting ones self to your ideas appears to be voluntary. However, my 1-12 history lessons taught me that people like you are entirely too tolerant of your brethren who are a bit more ...ah, shall we say they believe more in reaching out to the unconverted. In ways such as the rack, which was used to convert (quite successfully, I believe) non-believers.
Now, I haven't seen a rack used for some time. And no one knocks at my door on Sunday and offers me a ride in a squad car to church. I think that is a good thing.
I am sorry to say that, in this matter, I am as tolerant of the ACLU and their excesses as the good folk in the past were tolerant of the excesses of their Christian brethren. Maybe I didn't understand about the Pilgrims. Maybe it was supposed to be about turkeys and Indians and I screwed it up in my youth.
Nevertheless, I sleep better knowing that maybe we have gone too far. I guess we get to pick our choice of evils on this one. Be nice if we could meet in the middle, but I am scared. We are dealing with a powerful force here.

Consider the tolerance of the Puritans within their own society. Consider again why they left England. Hint: they weren't allowed to live according to their own beliefs.
Consider the nature of England at the time: there was a State Religion, and it was illegal to belong to another.
Consider the wars in France over the ability to express your religion as you see fit.
Now consider the United States today.
Are we anywhere close to establishing a theocracy? No. Are we anywhere close to establishing a State religion? No.
Are we anywhere close to establishing a default State belief system? Yep: secularism, or perhaps even atheism.
Go back and actually read the documents like the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and count how many times the word "God" comes up.
The ACLU, Democrats, progressives, and atheists, are quickly putting themselves in the position of saying the US Constitution is Unconstitutional because it clearly doesn't meet the Separation of Church and State standard.
And consider that if anyone forced you to go to church or forced you to recite a creed proclaiming your allegience to any deity, that there would be millions of people with guns standing up to such tyranny.
It's a perspective difference, perhaps.
But the majority of Americans are religious. Why should we be forced to adopt an atheist default? And why are atheists so sensitive that they cannot endure expressions of religion that are specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

I believe that you are missing the point. None of your complaints are about what believers do in the privacy of their homes or in their houses of worship or in their communications with each other. Take it to the next step.
Believers are totally free to publish books, have radio and TV shows (subject to decency rules) (that was a joke!) do direct mail and gather together in public squares for prayer vigils.
Your complaints center about the next step up. Where they interact with non-believers.
At the time this country was founded we did have an unofficial state religion - Christianity. As you point out, it was inculcated in all of our government documents, architecture and customs. Stemming from the time that the priest was the only one in the village who could write, all documents were laced with references to God. It was customary. Without appealing to a higher power no document was considered authoritative. Treaties, etc. of today do not contain the ceremonial references commonly found in all government documents in 1776. Citing references to God in old documents and claiming that everyone who signed them was certifying that every reference to God was absolutely correct and the basis for the positions taken in the documents is ... simplistic. Drafting documents without the traditional references to God would have raised issues that the founders did not wish to raise.
A stronger (and logically consistent) position on your part would be to argue that important government documents written today should include the same references. I can see it now on, say, an IBM treaty with Iran: "In the yeare of Our Lord...". See what I mean?

Sort of.
I think we are talking past each other somewhat.

There is a wide band of gray area that can be inferred from the US Constitution and court rulings, I guess.

To atheists/secularists, "Freedom of religious expression" seems to mean that the government, and any subordinate portion, may not express anything religious at all. No mention of the word "God", no religious displays, and no tax dollars going toward anything religious. And only in that manner can we have "religious freedom", i.e., a government free of religious influence whatsoever.

My point is that places way too much emphasis on one special type of belief system. We all have belief systems. Atheism is just as much a religion as Christianity in that in the imaginary block labeled "What God do you believe in?", atheists mark the box that says "Nothing". It doesn't fit in "how tall are you?" or "what race are you?" or anything else.
Every person must have a source upon which they base their values, upon which they decide what is good and what is bad, what is proper and what is improper, etc. It may be a philosophical view, or a faith in humanity, or God, or the Laws of Physics, or following their own heart, but they base what they do and what they accept as truth on something, and that something is a belief system. "Religion" is nothing more than a sub-heading under which we group certain types of similar belief systems.

To base government upon only one specific belief system is dangerous, because then other belief systems are derided and excluded. Atheists and secularists have personally decided not only that their belief system is correct for them, but that it is superior to all other belief systems. Even more, atheists/secularists have decided that theirs is the correct system upon which our government and society must be based, regardless of what anyone else thinks, and you (they?) have embarked on a campaign to impose it, based on the non-Constitutional notion of Separation of Church and State.

However, this has gone far enough that many people feel "freedom of religion" has crossed the line to "freedom from religion" (yeah, I'm going to pull out that old saying, because it's valid in this context). In a truly pluralistic government, all belief systems have validity, and all can be expressed. Naturally, the belief systems most widely held will be expressed the most, but as long as no one is forced to adopt a belief system or mouth words or declare an allegience, there is no establishment at all.

Under that view, "Under God" in the pledge of allegience is no big deal, because not one person is required to ever say any of the pledge, much less those two words.

In swearing oaths of office, "God" is always an option, but never required.

Religious chaplains for the military and Congress are paid with tax dollars, and every military base has a chapel.

Our money still says, "In God we trust", no?

If your view is correct, these things are UnConstitutional. And while the ACLU would probably love to see these things outlawed, I don't see any lawsuits for most of them. Why? Because despite the recent propaganda and push toward the sterilization of society for the sensibilities of atheists/secularists, the US Constitution hasn't been torn up yet.

So, no, important government documents should not be required to have the same references, because that would mean an imposition of a belief system. But neither should the person/people drafting such documents be restricted from it. Nor should the reading or hearing of such references/phrases be construed as "force", because one of the main aspects that makes America both strong and great is the ability to accept and endure views different from your own.

Like I accept and endure yours. [grin]

(um: even though I disagree with you on this issue, I really appreciate you coming back and responding, and wouldn't mind at all if you tear (or attempt to tear) this response apart. You have not offended or bothered me with anything you've said, and I hope the feeling is mutual...I can sometimes offend when I get to enthusiastic about my opinion! :)

It is inarguable that the founding fathers intended that the United States government remain entirely secular. They were wise men who realized that this is the single most effective way to ensure freedom of religious expression. What does this mean? It means that government should not be in the business of funding, regulating, addressing, encouraging, sponsoring, or in any other way becoming involved with any religion of any kind. Where the power of the state begins, religion has to stop. Only then will people be free to practice their religion in peace, be they Christians OR atheists.

Wait a second. You may be convinced, Susie, but that hardly makes it inarguable. Strong assertions to not constitute strong proof.

I can name hundreds of examples that indicate you are absolutely wrong, starting with the 1st Amendment that only says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment..."
I can continue with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights..."
Please show me any official document that demonstrates our forefathers wanted anything more strict than No Official State Religion like the Church of England.
In fact, you have it turned around exactly wrong: the founders of the nation were trying to protect religion from control/influence/stifling by the government, not the other way around.

That isn't to say there aren't some good reasons for keeping religious views out of government. But you weaken your case immensely by ascribing your own opinions to the founding fathers on little or no evidence.

*****In fact, you have it turned around exactly wrong: the founders of the nation were trying to protect religion from control/influence/stifling by the government, not the other way around.*****

How do you imagine that a government which is involved with religion is going to avoid stifling it?

My position is that the two should be viewed as intrinsically incompatible if everyone is to remain free to practice as they see fit. Religion is a matter of conscience. Each person has to come to their own conclusions, and plot their own spiritual path. This is an intensely personal process. As such, while it may have a place in public life, it should never be meddled with, one way or the other, by government.

Serial posting to add:

And that is exactly what the founding fathers thought. They were religious men, but they weren't so stupid as to imagine that government and religion should mix.

Perhaps I don't know exactly what you're complaining of. Have you been prevented from practicing your faith in a manner that the founding fathers would have found objectionable? I very much doubt it. They went or did not go to church, read or did not read their Bibles, said or did not say their prayers, and engaged their spirit as they saw fit. That is the meat of religious freedom, and is available to every American, as it has been since the founding of our country. What more could you possibly need, and why should it come from the government?

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Democrats found it, and the language was drafted by and for Republicans. It is true that prominent Republicans have expressed outrage, but the people responsible for the language (Republicans) have dismissed even their colleagues by characterizing the entire thing as "a tempest in a teacup."

You'll forgive me if I don't accept your version of the events as bearing anything more than a passing resemblance to the actual facts.

From CNN:

"Istook's deputy chief of staff, Micah Leydorf, told CNN Sunday that neither she nor Istook had actually seen the provision and that it was added to the spending bill at the full committee level by House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, a California Republican."

While it may be true that Istook had nothing to do with this snafu, his representatives pin responsibility for it on other Republicans. If the only info I could find on the situation was some liberal or Democrat blaming Republicans, I wouldn't have bothered to post, for lack of information, but when a Republican is blaming Republicans? I don't know . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/tax.provision/

Serial posting to say:

Who cares anyway? Apparently the problem is fixed.

Gosh, I really need to stop serial posting.
:)

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

appreciate it,Nathan!

see you Dec.1!

Yeah, I could have used some more humor earlier this month. (Damon and Jan are just so much better to laugh at than the real life antics we're seeing on both sides of the aisle.)

*can't wait*

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Man, I miss the day of Sir Charles Barkley, and his tame antics on the basketball court.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I've read a lot of Greek history lately and I think things are a little different than you had stated. Macedonian norms may have been different, so keep that caveat in mind. From what I've read, there were standard practices for this: an older man would take a young boy as his lover, as the boy got older though the relationship was supposed to end. The older man would choose his next boy, etc. The boy that grew up would get married and homosexual relations were supposed to end... until he was old enough to take a young boy as a lover, etc. For all I know, the whole thing was part of education to an extent. In some states, when a man got married his bride had her hair cut extremely short--probably to help ease him into a heterosexual relationship.

There seems to have been heavy social pressure to do things by whatever norms were accepted (which were quite different in the various Greek states). Extremes were frowned upon. However, Alexander's relationship with his older friend (which may or may not have continued beyond what was acceptable) was clearly outside those norms. So maybe Stone is not totally dishonest...the facts just aren't clear enough to base a story one way or the other.

I've oversimplified things, and from what I've read it seems Macedonian relationships may have been quite different. So an apology is due to those that have studied these things much more and can summarize them better.

One of my favorite quotes from Alexander, though, is along the lines of "Sex and sleep alone make me conscious that I am mortal." Which has nothing to do the discussion, but I love it anyway. OK, enough rambling...

Point taken.
And I have no problem conceding that your knowledge in this matter is clearly greater than my own. I've never studied Macedonian history/society to the degree that you obviously have. My opinion was formed more on a general understanding of what homosexuality meant back then, if that's not clear. In that, you describe it pretty much how I understood it, but your explanation clears up some aspects that leaves a different impression.
Thanks.

My pleasure. And I didn't mean to pick nits.

VD Hanson's books finally pushed me over the edge to actually read the source material from way back when. And it is incredibly fascinating stuff.

I didn't see it as picking nits, but rather an extension of the original issue.

« Hide Comments

Of course! They were/are sure ugly though.

« Hide Comments

*blogging "ages". That means more than 6 months, which is nearly an eternity in blog-time.

It's one of those many blogosphere transition periods, I think. People are coming and going, reordering, taking breaks, etc.

« Hide Comments

ACK! I've been punned!
(And googlebombed, if you think about it.)

I'd like to thank the Acadamy, and endless hours of "Who's line is it anyway?"...

« Hide Comments

John Ratzenberger?

Seriously, I don't know who and I'm a major Pixar fan.

That would be John Ratzenberger (a.k.a. "Cliff")
I think he was in all the Pixar films, from Toy Story to The Incredibles, and had a one line role in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. (As the good guys are getting ready to get-out-of-dodge from the Ice Planet Hoth. He tells them to get their gear, and get to their ships.)

He definately was no Wedge Antilles.
You can't beat Wedge

Jeremy, that was an awesome essay. I've always liked Wedge myself.

He is also the subject of the #1 Suggestive Line from Star Wars, you know:
Pull out, Wedge. You're not doing any good back there.

From Star-Wars-dot-com

In Decipher's Star Wars Customizable Card Game, Major Bren Derlin's card comes with an odd biographical tidbit: "At the Mos Eisley Cantina, everyone knows his name." If you're scratching your head over this odd link between the sweltering desert world of Tatooine and the icy planet Hoth, don't bother looking through your Star Wars novels and comics. It's a joke -- an allusion by Decipher to the fact that John Ratzenberger, a bit player in The Empire Strikes Back, would go on to star for more than a decade in Cheers, one of the most popular TV sitcoms in American history, set in a bar where, as the song goes, everyone knows your name.
*Giggles*

Thanks Nathan,
I liked crafting that essay. (I got into many a geeky argument with "Star Wars Fans" (most of whom were born AFTER Star Wars (BASW) and had only seen these wonderful films on videotape) in college. So I used a lot of that material in the article.)

Then add the perspective which Kevin Smith's "Clerks" provides (The Rebel Alliance being a "Left-Wing Terrorist Faction") and you got some great satire.

(but that does not discount my assertion that Wedge is the best.character.ever.)
You Can't Beat Wedge.

... even if he's not doing "any good back there" and Luke tells him to pull out of the Death Star Trench, so he can have it all to himself.
*snicker*

« Hide Comments

*Again.

Sorry to hear about the divorce, Nathan. Hope that, no matter what, it works out best for all involved in the long-term.

Anyway, I was with you until the bit about God. ;) Seriously, though, some of what you said touches on something I am working on at the moment, which may or may not see the light of day - depends on if I can bring it around to be something meaningful. So, I enjoyed the read.

Uh, except for the God business. :)

Andy,
[grin]
Well, to tell the truth, those two paragraphs were an afterthought. The point was Love As A Near-Indefinable Hodge-Podge, not Love In Relation To God; but as I was writing, I thought introducing it provided some more depth to the topic.

Flat-out, though: my belief is certainly mine and mine alone. I share my thoughts on God and Faith because it influences everything I am, in the same way my love of late-80s Heavy Metal influences my enjoyment and understanding of all the music I listen to today, nearly 20 years later. But you don't have to like late-80s Heavy Metal to have a conversation with me about modern pop music or 3-century-old classical music, you don't even need to have listened to any of it. Just like my belief in God in relation to the other topics.

Good-natured pot-shots (like the one you left in comments just now) for the fun of it are still acceptable and expected. Pot-shots that go beyond good-natured are still okay, and will be met with good-natured responses after I calm down. [grin]

Awwww, Nathan...{{{Hugs}}} I am sure this isn't easy and I will pray for you. (To that same God, Andy ;)

When time, emotion and opportunity permit -- give me a call. My advice probably leaves much to be desired, but I can usually listen well...

Dude, sorry to hear about the divorce. My best friend went through that hell a few years ago. Best wishes.

Everyone,
Thanks for condolences...but that wasn't the point of the piece. I only included it as part of the whole thought process.
It's...not what I would have expected. It's complicated, and better and worse, and more painful and less painful and painful for totally different reasons that I would have expected.
But that's life. The tough part really was gettting to this point over the last 2 years, but actually being at this point is much less turbulent and distressing. It's after the storm has passed that you find out what damage has already been done, yanno?

"It's after the storm has passed that you find out what damage has already been done"

Been there and want to express my best wishes as well. And interesting takes on several themes. Of course, there is a whole world out there arguing whether or not there really is such an item as an "idealized love." But I can most identify with the "somewhere in the middle" comment.

Again, best wishes.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*Okay, you probably didn't. But it makes a nice, emphatic closing statement. I'm all about emphatic closing statements.**

**Okay, I'm not, really. But I am today.

well Said!!

« Hide Comments

Lady, I'm gonna have to ask you to leave the store.

(I love this idea!)

"Lost In Time."
"Surrounded By Evil."
"LOW ON GAS."

(Here's to one of the all-time great deliberately silly horror flicks and its underappreciated star, Bruce Campbell.)

« Hide Comments

It is Doctor Rice, not Miss Rice.

Yes, but it's in a quote from a deliberately satirical news article. Using "Miss" instead of the normal honorific is probably part of the satirical intent.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Actually, I think most people consider it a little better than those others because it offers hope for the future. But then, what do I know.

Enough to have a valid opinion, at least.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

First: I saw the clip shown on The Lehrer Report. Isn't it a shame that we need to know such information before we can evaluate someone's comment. I believe that I saw and heard a Marine shoot (and presumably kill) a person in Falujah, Iraq, a combat zone. The person was prone and appeared to be dead. Some other person stated that the prone person was breathing. The same person or someone else said that he was pretending to be dead. The Marine then shot him and stated: "He's dead now." I presume that he was then dead, if not before. Did I hear the bravado in the Marine's voice? Yes.
I was surprised that the discussion on Lehrer that followed was about the death, that it included three people brought in especially to discuss the piece and that someone had apparently raised an issue about the clip.
Now I know what is up.
Many have wondered what will happen in the "next" war when GI's in the foxhole have cell phones. Well, now we know. WHATEVER happened here, did anyone think that such things don't happen in war? There are those who think that a Marine should die before violating the civil rights of anyone, much less kill them. Those who think that should be left to the mercies of a terrorist bent on torture. People who have had to face war will instinctively side with the Marine. There are too many dead Marines already who tried to be too careful with dead bodies or wounded terrorists faking death. I'll say it: I side with him even if he thought the wounded Iraqui probably wasn't dangerous. Probably isn't good enough. This is war. Did the dead man know he was in a war zone? Yes. Did he have an opportunity to get out? Yes.
End of story.

notherbob:"Did the dead man know he was in a war zone? Yes. Did he have an opportunity to get out? Yes."

did he have the opportunity to get out of the war zone that is his country? was he to immigrate to canada?

or do you mean did he have the opportunity to get out of Fallujah? If you followed the way the evacuation of Fallujah occured you would know the US forces refused exit of all men of his age and forced them back to the city the last few weeks.

There are plenty of military men (I am one) who don't fault the marine per se in this case but who see the Falujah siege as essentially an attrocity.

You toss the term "terrorist." we don't know any such thing, we don't know the man was even one of the legal combatants that comprise the bulk of the Iraqi isnurgency! Our position is there were 2,000 to 3,000 insurgents in Fallujah last month. We allowed the evacuation of everyone but "military age men" who were all turned back. Population is 300,000. 70% had fled in past three months. Pentagon estimates before the attack were that 1,500 to 2,000 insurgents remained. this would mean you have somewhere between 50,000 to 5,000 NON INSYRGENT military age men! in any most military age men left in Fallujah are not insurgents by our own reconing. These men may have been terrorists, may have been legal combatants, or may have had never been either as far as we know and may have fled the fighting to the mosque.

"People who have had to face war will instinctively side with the Marine"
We may "instinctively side with the Marine, but we do not all side with the idiots who thought to make Iraq a lesson in transformation.

If you lived in Iraq my friend and hated Saddam, there is a very good chance that at this point you would hate American troops and take up arms. At this point we have killed someone in almost every family.

Wes,
You assume an awful lot about the state of mind of the terrorist.

Yes, terrorist. Somewhere between 60% and 80% of the terrorists fighting us in Fallujah are from outside Iraq. Terrorists from all over the Middle East are coming to Iraq for the chance to kill Americans.

Most of the civilians had fled the city long before the operation started because the terrorists had made their lives miserable, imposing Taliban-like restrictions on people, terrorizing them, raping women, stealing, beating men if they shaved their beard.

You've heard the saying: lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Or "Birds of a feather flock together." The Chinese have something similar: "You get black if you stay around ink all the time..."
This group of terrorists had been firing on US Marines. Weapons were around the room. This one was feigning being dead...to pick up a weapon after the Marines moved on to attack them from the rear? Maybe. Probably. They are investigating it, though.
Are any of the terrorists investigating the murder of Mrs Hassan, a British ex-patriot? Or the Polish women who was in Iraq to help people? Or Nick Berg? If they did investigate, would any of the terrorists be charged with a crime?

Take another look at the saying about lying down with dogs, then consider the inhumanity of those you are so vociferously defending. You need a flea collar.

No, my friend, it is YOU who toss the terms “atrocity” and “idiots”.
Your statement about someone in almost every family being killed is not true. I don’t believe we have killed someone in almost every family who has traditionally resided in Falujah, much less Iraq.
It is good that you are commenting outside the liberal cocoon and I, for one, welcome such comments. One hint: outside the cocoon, ridiculous claims that are not supported by facts will be challenged. This is especially true if they attack our (you don’t mind being included in “our”, do you?) government or its policies. Attack away, but please try to stick to the facts.
One more tip: Iraq is not Vietnam. Outside the cocoon, people do not relate the two so you must state your assumptions or your points will not be understood.
I would be pleased to gain more understanding of the point of view of those who think we are on the wrong track in Iraq. Even though it is in the past, I hope we did learn something from Vietnam.
I know all the bad guys who wanted to apparently escaped Falujah. I don't know about the practice regarding military age men you cite. Would you be insulted if I said I doubt that it's true? Sorry.

« Hide Comments

Let me know if you get any extras. :)

Shoot. I'll consider myself lucky beyond bounds if I get one.

Did you get the CD and figurines yet, like you were planning to?

Not yet. I'm going to wait a few more months before I buy anything else for myself for a while. I've spent enough on rifles and strategy games over the last 2 years....

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

That's a great thing to hear. It helps so much to get compliments like that now and then.

Awwww, Nathan-good for you. It is always nice to hear that someone else thinks you are a good parent. Especially someone who isn't thought "obligated" to show the love ;)

« Hide Comments

Jeremy R. Gilby's Rule Number 2: Always accept free food.

Shoot, that's nearly my Prime Directive.

Mmmm, Golden Corral rolls....(mouth is watering, now drooling....)

Shoot, Jeremy. If you lived one state north, we'd feed ya!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I see you have the same opinion of the NBA as I do.
Why couldn't they lock out the NBA and bring the NHL players back?

I was hoping someone would get a kick out of that line. :)

What if they used hockey players to play basketball? They'd probably have better fundamentals that today's NBA ball-hogs.

« Hide Comments

My only problem is that in my RSS Reader, when I don't have the images turned on, the placeholders slide over the text and I can't read the last word or so on each line.

Hey Nathan! I love the pictures!

« Hide Comments

*One of the few books I literally could not stop reading, btw.

**which is an oxymoron, in my view.

***Abortion rights were established by sidestepping democracy through the imposition of the court. It would be ironic if they were overturned the same way.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*Yeah, I know I still owe you a post on that. Monday, maybe...

« Hide Comments

*be honest: President Bush clearly articulated every single move he made before the fact. **And the terrorists still weren't able to stop his plans from reaching fruition.

***In fact, liberals kinda have the best of both worlds: they are kept safe and alive so they can nitpick and complain about minor or perceived mistakes.

****Inspired by this post by McQ.

« Hide Comments

It's note fair. I'm working so hard right now I barely have time to read your blog and comment.

...and here I am responding to your comment, which will probably serve only to waste more of your time reading and responding to it.

Sometimes it hardly seems worthwhile to have a job at all, eh?

« Hide Comments

Nice.
Witty Dialogue,
A film-noir first person perspective.
(I'm sure there is character development, but its not found in these 646 words.)
You left out much of the setting (but that is probably by design, this citation was more of an interaction between two characters)

I'm more of a 3rd person perspective writer, but I've toyed around with first-person from time to time.

Yeah, it's just started. I think I know where I want to go next, now, though. Finally.
The idea is to reel you in by giving character and setting a little more slowly. But by the end of the first chapter, you should know where, when, who, and what exactly the problem is that he's going to have to solve.
I haven't decided yet if the problem is who "she" is and why she threatened him like that, or if the problem is something she's bringing to him to help with. Probably a combination of both... [grin]

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Ultimately, there comes a point where we all agree.

Most issues, the same goals exist, it's the vehicle for getting there that's the problem. Right and left want to see less abortions. Typical left-thought is to do so by teaching sex ed and having birth control readily available to anyone who wants it. The right angle typically involves teaching abstinence. In the end we want to be in the same place though.

Right wants more jobs, left wants more jobs. Right often thinks giving business more freedoms/less taxation is the answer, some left (though definitely not all) think the answer lies in greater control on imported items and less outsourcing. Again, we want to be in the same place, but the way we think we should proceed is where the arguments begin.

And people, DO NOT make Nathan do something. It will be ugly. :)

You're reading way too much into it. Conservatives are simply dumb.

We may safely ignore Liberal Larry the troll who is neither Larry nor Liberal.
When conservatives meet liberals they not only have to confront them with their ideas, they must deal with the liberal arrogance that they believe entitles them to make the rules for the discussion. Think if our ambassadors were instructed to speak French.
Liberals place themselves in the group that includes all people of culture and regard conservatives as uncultured. When a disagreement becomes evident, the liberals assume ignorance on the part of the conservative. The naive conservative assumes that the liberal has followed a different line of reasoning in reaching their conclusions and is willing to debate the differences. After a few encounters the conservative realizes that the liberals believe that they have been given their insight by the anointed priests (professors, Dan Rather and other MSM types, and Europe) and they are not about to reconsider it at the behest of some rube.
Liberal arrogance dooms any real discussion.

I meant to say also that this accounts for the fact that few liberals are interested in commenting (other than derisively when they see an opportunity to show off their cleverness) on conservative blogs. They are so clearly right, what could they possibly learn from a conservative. Also, when they try to refute conservative arguments they find that they are so out of practice at considering any questions about their beliefs that they do a terrible job of presenting them to a questioning person. In liberal society one does not question things, one understands them. The only questions tolerated are those which seek FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. Other liberals will always take the time to help a new liberal further understand liberal beliefs. Tolerance of someone questioning liberal beliefs? Not so much. Therefore when a conservative (who is reason-based) tangles with a liberal (who is faith [in professors, MSM and Europe]-based it isn’t pretty. Liberals learn to stick to the liberal blogs where none of their assumptions will be challenged.

I agree with Jo,
We all have the same goals. Its just we disagree on how to get there, and each side has a different philosophy on the nature of man.

One side wants to encourage characteristic A, and discourage characteristic B. The other side wants the opposite, and is driven to discourage Characteristic A, and encourage Characteristic B.

(Sometimes, I think this is some crazy mixed up world we live in, when two sides, who tacitly agree on a shared goal, and at the same time have completely opposing means of achieving that goal.)

I know. Is your chocolate really in my peanut butter, or is my peanut butter actually in your chocolate? Why can't we all see that these are actually two great tastes that go great together?

Just admit that you have a crush on Jo.

Heh.

Okay, I have a crush on Jo.

..er... wait!

Was that question directed at me?

that is a good view, thanks for all!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Ugh. What a nasty looking woman. No thanks, she's bad enough with clothes on.

Besides, I've had enough "bad boob job pictures" with Tara Reid, thank you.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Heck, why don't we turn this into a caption contest? I'll send a $10 Amazon gift certificate to the person I decide wins. Looking for funny/snarky.

Arizona: The state where you had to MAKE us celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. day.

New Hampshire: "Live Free or Die" its more then just a state motto.

Nevada: The Money you spend here, Stays here.

Rhode Island: Why should the smallest state give the most?

Massachusetts: Hey, we TRIED to give you our Senator, but you didn't take him!

Helps to prove the point that Democrats want the government to care for the less fortunate. Certainly, someone must care for the downtrodden in this country. I mean, really, why should they be bothered with such trite things, they have more important things to worry about. You know, tax that rich guy to feed and care for those poor hungry people over there - now go away, I'm to important to be bothered.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*although, unfortunately, I do expect this to happen. Keep a sharp eye out for new liberal code words by which they use conservative terminology to let their supporters know they remain committed to a liberal/socialist agenda.

If Dean heads up the DNC, we'll see a shift that defines the party more. Objectives will be clear, differences will be made obvious.

Under McAuliffe, it seemed the party strived to be everything to everyone. Which it cannot continue to try to be, because it will only fail.

I will avoid getting into the issue of "mandate". Bush won fair and square, but he should consider why there was also the largest turnout in history *against* him. It would be nice if he'd try that "uniter not a diver" thing he talked about years ago.

LOL..."divider".

« Hide Comments

Oh, man, I think Sally ate those poor children...

The world may never know...

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Actually, I think that would be me. :-)

In any case, this is horrible!
However can we find someone to trample on human rights with panache?

...oh, wait, Janet Reno is still available.

Attorney Generals enforce only the laws handed to them by congress. Unless they are Janet Reno, that is.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

The reason you are on the list is that they "borrowed" the list from me. I have you listed as from Montana, since you graduated here.

(There's another blogger on there who isn't in Montana, but I have listed as a Montana blogger, too.)

They've made a couple additions since I first saw the list this weekend, but there you go. Compare and contrast if you like.

Heh. :)

I figured that they got it from someone on the list.

Hey, did you see Chris Horn's highlight-reel-worthy catch-and-run in the last KC game. Too bad it was for a loss... :(

I missed that on the highlight reel, but I did hear something about it on the radio.

He usually gets a mention if he touches the ball.

Well, it didn't actually make the highlights. But it was pretty cool to me.
He also fielded two short kick-offs, but didn't do anything impressive. They really need to try to work him into the offense more, because I could see him being a Ricky Proehl-type of possession receiver...maybe even developing into a guy who can run after the catch like Ed McCafferey or John Taylor. No one will ever confuse him with Chris Carter, tho, obviously.

« Hide Comments

Conservatives have the Global War On Terror, I guess liberals gotta have their own war on an ideology they can't accept, too.

**although the article also describes a loss in Spain.

« Hide Comments

Hmmm. That's some of the more mild stuff I've been party to. I might post more of my prank days as soon as I find out what the statute of limitations are on them!

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

OT- And you thought Barbara was a hottie: I bring you ChiefsGirl.

She's a Chiefs nut - and a conservative.

Just remember, I saw her first.

You're right, she is attractive. ...might be the Filipino blood?
In any case, I think the coolest thing about her is "Future Air Force Chaplain", but "Conservative" and "Chiefs Fan" run close on the list.
Good luck in your quest!

« Hide Comments

*I'm sure in real life they are really wonderful.

**Heck, you could use her chin for an anvil.

I kinda like Barbara meself (but then I always was attracted to the dangerous ones -- as is evidenced by my marrying a woman who thought Glenn Close was playing a sympathetic character in Fatal Attraction...)

...but do they "do parties"?

(tee hee)

Frankly, I think Babs is a babe. But what's creapy about this pic is Jenna - at this angle, she looks just like Dubya in drag.

Barbara is a babe. But she looks like she knows it, and there's that "psycho" quality lurking just beneath the surface. Maybe I'm having too many flashbacks from days at Baylor, because there's no b**ch like a Texas b**ch.
I'm right with you on your opinion of Jenna. She's getting beefy.

If my '78 Trans-Am is the price to pay, then I say, "burn, baby, burn".

Oh come on. Jenna would be fun to drink some cold beer with, and might embarass you by drinking you under the table, and Babs is hot. Unreservedly. She could very well be psycho, but there's a good chance that ANY female is psycho. And besides, you know what "they" say about rich girls: the worse you treat 'em, the better they like it.

I think the correct phrasing is: "treat the whores like princesses and the princesses like whores".

A burned Trans Am is a small price to pay for crazy-woman sex.

« Hide Comments

In January of 1956 I swore to carry out the commands of the Commander-In-Chief (who was DDE) Eight years later I was discharged from the Army Reserves but that oath of allegiance is still in effect. I'll go to Iraq if Bush says go and having my picture inlaid with these heroes would be the greatest legacy I could hope for. God Bless America!

« Hide Comments

*just asking.

I expected the "under the fold" comment to be something like:

WELL, NONE THAT I KNOW OF!! *wink* *nudge*

LOL!!

Oh, Lord. I really set myself up this time, didn't I? Sheesh.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

My-o-my...

Cheifs? Super Bowl? You are about as delusional as that woman who thinks the GOP doesn't own a debt of gratitude to the religious right. Your biggest problem: Vermeil.

COLTS ALL THE WAY!!!

« Hide Comments

Hey, a few days from now, you need to muse outloud about how the population density is proportional to the liberal vote.

FYI

Thanks so much, Jeremy. [grin]

Hey, I'm here to help!

« Hide Comments

Yeah, and I'm a commenting shmuck who's awake at 1:10 AM trying to rebuild my entire server apparatus in 2003 Server, which I know little about, using 2003 server AD, which I know little about, as well as installing exchange 2003, which I know NOTHING about.

I'm getting sleepy....

I just figured giving myself a google bomb for "blogging machine" might be advisable after Dan Rather's comment the other night.

I get the feeling you're a blogging machine!

I thought I'd go for shmuck...

« Hide Comments

*don't you hate it when you think you've been clever enough to coin a new term or concept and someone already did it more than a year earlier?

BTO is a threat that should not be underestimated.

HOWEVER, you give the dems too much credit. They couldn't wire a pipe bomb if their live depended on it.

This election broke their collective, weenie little backs. Remember when Reagan defeated Carter? Who did they run the next two elections? No one (of any consideration at least.)

The Democratic Party is over. Done. Finito. Bush crushed them, the House, the Senate, the state legislatures, the Governors were all nails in the coffin.

Here's what will happen...MoveOn and Howard Dean will take over the left. Being so out of touch, they will lose an other primary to...Hil'ry. Hil'ry will run in '08 and the entire country will laugh in her face.

John McCain/Jeb Bush will win two terms, and Jeb will win at least a third. After being dominated for two decades, the dems will simply cease to be.

Which is fine with me because I am sick of their anti-Christian, pro-gay stances anyway. (I, for one, look forward to the laws that will promote Christianity in the classroom--please tell me that the Genesis creation story should not be taught but sex education should).

We run the show, and there ain't nothin Sean Penn gonna do 'bout it now!

Takin Care of B'Ness:

The Genesis creation story should not be taught (except perhaps in literature classes), but sex education should. There you go.

As for the Democrats: They either have to repudiate the far left as the Republicans have repudiated the far right, and move to the center just as the Republicans have, or die. I don't expect them to get the message in time for 2008.

I disagree a little bit. I don't think conservatives moved to the center much at all. If anything, all they did was open up the tent to include more of the center, i.e., not requiring someone to be pro-life to be a member. We've got plenty of South-Park and 9/11 Republicans who helped put Bush in office without sharing significant platforms views. You could argue that represents a shift because it puts the average point of compromise farther to the left, but I think the core constiuency of Republicans has not shifted at all.
Also, we have repudiated our far Right. White Supremacists are denigrated everywhere within the Party. Pat Buchanon and Pat Robertson don't influence Republican policy. Jerry Falwell is no longer a force in Republican politics.

...but that's just the way I see it, and I can admit there might be a perspective influence there.

Pixy--whatever.

The moderates need to kiss our Christian Coalition butts right now. If it weren't for us, you would have been watching Bush's concession speach on Wednesday.

In short, you owe us. And we expect to be paid handsomely.

Otherwise, we WILL sit home during the midterms elections which, if case you have forgotten, are only 18 months away.

Pucker up sweet Pixy.

Takin Care:

Sorry, not a chance. We'll work with you gladly to get done what needs to be done, but don't expect to get paid for doing the right thing.

'Cause if you hadn't voted for Bush, you would have gotten Kerry too.

Nathan, repudiating the far right was the critical thing. That allowed the moderates and centrists (not the same thing!) to join the Republicans in good faith and with a clear conscience.

Until the Democrats likewise repudiate the far left, they're not going anywhere.

Sorry, I see what happened. Typo in my original post, "haver" should read "have", not "haven't" or whatever, which is what I assume you took it to be.

Yes, that's why I feel comfortable as a centrist supporting President Bush, because the far right has been repudiated.

As for perspective... Well, there's the averaging effect, and then there's the fact that I myself have moved to the right. ;)

Pix:

Well, that's so nice that you extended that olive branch. If anything, the offer of reconciliation show the weakness of your bargaining position. What if Bush had taken the same approach to fighting terrorism?

I don't know if you noticed but because we have our faith, the guy who lives in the White House matters much less to us. If Kerry got elected, we would keep on doin' what were doin'--gettin' into heaven.

You, on the other hand, would have to cry yourselves to sleep each night.

We ain't backin' down. And we ain't voting for no pro-gay, anti-Christian moderate. The GOP has--permanently--drifted to the right. Take a good long look at Senator DeMint. He is the future. What's your alternative? To vote for a Democrat?

Do yourself a favor--go to church on Sunday and see what this revoloution is all about.

What if Bush had taken the same approach to fighting terrorism?

You mean, like welcoming assistance from other countries in Afghanistan and Iraq?

If Kerry got elected, we would keep on doin' what were doin'--gettin' into heaven.

Yeah, but to do that you've gotta die first. That's not high on my list of priorities.

And we ain't voting for no pro-gay, anti-Christian moderate.

So you'll sit in your corner and pout? Fine by me.

What's your alternative? To vote for a Democrat?

Not likely. I live in Australia.

The President and the majority of the Republican Party, not to mention Conservatives, owe nothing to the Christian Coalition or the Religious Right.

I speak as one of them, being Republican, conservative, and strongly Christian, with my understanding of sin influencing the political decisions I make based on what how it impacts human nature.

If the Christian Coalition is unhappy with how the Bush Administration proceeds, they (we?) can form yet another minority party. Luckily, the Bush agenda includes many things important to Christians, but the party as a whole absolutely should not be held ransom by a significant minority bloc. Influence, but not dictate. Or else you end up slaughtering the goose that lays golden eggs.
Bottom Line: My Republican Party does not care so much about power that it allows itself to be blackmailed by special interest groups. Leave that sort of crap to the Democrats, okay?

Sorry, I see what happened. Typo in my original post, "haver" should read "have", not "haven't" or whatever, which is what I assume you took it to be.

Yeah, I think that's what happened. I was reading quickly, and interpreted the extra "r" as "n't". Which doesn't make sense in the syntax, so I'm an idiot. Anyway, I went ahead and fixed it.

All I am saying is--adopt a Christian agenda or lose 4million plus voters in '08. Do the math right now: 59,459,765-4,000,000=John Kerry.

Accept it.

And I don't mean by "welcoming assitstance" which is just another euphemism for asking for a permission slip from the UN. I mean by playing nice with rogue actors. Some people only understand power through force. Appeasement gets you nowhere.

Why am I arguing American politics with an Aussie? Let me ask you this--what is Austrailia's greatest contribution to world political culture? Crockodile Dundee?

Why am I arguing American politics with an Aussie? Let me ask you this--what is Austrailia's greatest contribution to world political culture? Crockodile Dundee?

Ah, such intelligent discourse today!

Gettin Bizzy,
You do the math: there's at least 4 million pro-choice Republicans. Would you accept an argument that you have to swallow a pro-abortion agenda now?
Of course not!
We work together. We are a big tent. Blackmail will not work, or you'll just find yourself kicked out of the tent in the same way we did White Supremacists.

...besides, 4 million was an estimate from the last election. Not necessarily true now. And if it was 4 million that wouldn't have voted but did, well, that 4 million got their reward in 11 states amending their constitution to ban gay marriages (for veracity: I'm pleased with the result). So what else should the Republican Party owe you? Try: "nothing". Work with us, and we'll work on adopting parts of your personal agenda. Persuade more people to adopt it, and you'll get more of it integrated into the Republican platform.
But remember the old warning about ultimatums!

Dundee was a joke--lighten up people! I think the reason y'all so tetchy is that you know I am right...far right!

What's the matter? Cat got your tongue? Or did you see the Senators announcement today about fillibusters to block judiciary appointments which was in response to Specter's little faux pas?

Bye bye Rove v. Wade, bye bye!

Let me ask you this--what is Austrailia's greatest contribution to world political culture?

East Timor.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Independent thinking is what I look for in candidates, people who don't make statements or create legislation always favoring their endorsers or contributors. Our Governor, one congressman, and both of our Senators routinely cross party lines in both word and action. I think that makes them better representatives. By taking surprising tacts they've worked wonders for our state.

And I think Specter's advice was good, myself.

I don't think Bush endorsing Toomey would have gotten him elected. Many thought he was too far right.

Now, Nathan, you've told me that it is the GOP who is the "big tent" party...I think whether or not other Republicans support Specter is proof of that statement...or not.

There's a little bit of twisting my words in your statement, Jo...
From what I've heard, the primary between Toomey and Specter was close, and Bush took a good bit of criticism for supporting Specter.
Now Specter is attempting to impose a litmus test for the President's selection to the Supreme Court. That is not his position, and represents a betrayal. Perhaps not a major one, but a betrayal nonetheless. I wouldn't be so upset about it if Specter just voted down a selection on the basis of abortion rights. But as a Republican Senator who benefited greatly from Bush's endorsement to use his leadership position to stump againt Bush's agenda is not good sportsmanship, even if it is politics as usual. To me, it lacks integrity.

OK, first, don't mean to twist your words in any fashion.

Second: Let's remember Specter's upcoming duties. He's going to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Hatch is term-limited out. This might be a clear statement of "Just 'cuz you send it my way and you endorsed me doesn't mean it gets approved".

And I think that's pretty cool.

"Twisting" only to the extent that I have said the GOP is a big tent...but this isn't really a "big tent" issue. It's not his views that bother me, it's the way he articulated his intent to oppose any attempt by President Bush to nominate a candidate who might overturn abortion rights...whether or not that view comes from a non-religious strict interpretation of the Constitution. That goes way beyond "advise and consent", just as the Democrats did with nominations in the last term. And after President Bush took criticism to support him and help him win the nomination, For Sen. Sepcter to say this at this point, with Chief Justice Renquist's health situation, seems more than just a notice that he won't rubberstamp nominations. If you ask someone for help, you don't kick them to the curb the instant you don't their help anymore, and that's exactly what Specter did.
Zell Miller still voted with Democrats on a large number of issues. He didn't suddenly vote in line with Republicans or anything. But Specter is declaring a Democrat-style litmus test. For all the venom your party spewed on Sen. Miller, this represents a greater betrayal than anything Sen. Miller ever did.

But Specter is declaring a Democrat-style litmus test. For all the venom your party spewed on Sen. Miller, this represents a greater betrayal than anything Sen. Miller ever did.

Only from the perspective of a died-in-the-wool Republican. Otherwise, that statement is more than a bit of a stretch. I would argue that "declaring a Democrat-style litmus test" on a single issue...even an important and contentious one...is no worse than openly and virulently endorsing an opposing candidate for president, particularly at the opposing primary. Do you think Senator Miller would have done this if he had been running for re-election as a Democrat and needed party support and funding? If your concerns really have more to do with the context in which the dissent is raised, than you certainly have to lump Zell's actions under the whole "betrayal to party" tent (Gotta love all these tent analogies).

Re-reading the article, I see perhaps I over-reacted somewhat. I somehow got the impression he inherits the position by seniority or something. If this actually gives Senators a chance to know what his view is and then vote accordingly, then I agree it isn't a betrayal and is actually pretty good.

That is all. We now return you to your normally scheduled inanity.

This seems a clear example of where conservatives and moderates part ways. The giveaway is the use of the word “betrayal”. As you admit, too strong, but your emotion was revealed. Specter’s action is a betrayal only if he swore an oath to support an agenda which included voting for and otherwise supporting Conservative judicial appointments. He either did and is a rat or he did not and he is free to speak his mind. I do not think that speaking his mind now is a betrayal. When you feel that your leader is wrong or is tempted to head in a wrong direction, you oftentimes support him best by opposing him. This being politics and all it may only be that Spectre hopes to reap some political benefit from his statement. I don’t think so.
It would be a grave mistake to interpret the Bush victory as a blanket endorsement of the entire Conservative agenda. Repealing Roe v Wade is not a majority position and the majority feels very strongly about it. It may be the new “third rail” in American politics for the President. Appointing judges who overturn it will only result in a Constitutional Amendment (yes, the votes are there, count ‘em) and a rending of America that ends who knows where. Surely President Bush is smart enough and cares enough about America to not let that happen. Specter is right to stand up right now so that we don’t start down that slippery slope. This really is the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

Waitasecond. Now you assume too much. This is about integrity more than the actual issues. I actually don't support the repealing of Roe vs. Wade.
Well, I don't support the complete banning of abortion. I support more restrictions, tho. But if Roe vs. Wade should be repealed, it should only be to replace it with something else that can't be threatened by 1 change of a SCOTUS Justice. I've often said that the pro-abortionists stupidly accepted a temporary victory now rather than waiting 5 years for a permanent one.
Now, I've said why this issue is important to me three different ways and the three of you don't seem to catch it: If I cover your back to get you elected, you damn well better cover my back on my most major issues.
Bush spent political capital supporting Specter. And Specter's first announcement after winning the seat again is to announce that he'll block any attempt to put a strict constructionist on the SCOTUS?
But like I said, if this just helps Senate Republicans to realize he's the wrong person for the position, then that's good. If it's an announcement of: "This is where I stand, and I'm telling you now so you won't be surprised later," then I would consider that honorable. I just didn't get that impression the first time I read it. And apparently bunches of other people didn't, either.
Part of it simply might be the way the reporter edited/transcribed the statement, since the reporter is the same one who distorted Sen. Santorum's statements to make them seem more inflammatory, the same reporter whose husband worked on Kerry's campaign.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your conclusions in this piece, you raise some good points, and in a reasonably non-judgemental way.

It's fairly clear that the democratic party needs to change. It is no longer the "party of middle-class America." What it will ultimately become, has yet to be seen, but clearly extreme "progressive" views won't get you elected in the bulk of the nation anymore. Part of what got Bush a second term was a combination of focus on "core values" blended with reasonably generic leanings to the center (loose standards on illegal immigration and at least verbal support of issues such as assault weapons bans and homosexual civil unions). Perhaps the Democrats' answers lie more towards the center as well.

But I suppose once you've leaned far enough one way or the other, you really have to question whether there are even two parties anymore. Can you say Zel Miller or John McCain? I'm not a big Michael Savage fan, but his analysis that we have "Republicrats" and "Democans" elected in our country is probably an apt one.

It'll be an interesting four years, to be sure.

This comment could as easily have gone under my "New Manifest Destiny" post. :)

The thing is, I don't think Bush was really doing much "leaning" or "triangulating". I think that President Bush has merely followed his heart and the best advice of good advisors to bring about the approximate results he thought was good for the country. Karl Rove's job is to highlight the good results, minimize the bad results, and put the best overall spin onto the President's decisions. But really, despite what Rove's ideological opponents say, not to tell Bush to cold-bloodedly adopt positions to get votes/support.

Perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to the Democrat Party was Bill Clinton's election and re-election, because it seems to have convinced most Democrats that style is more important than substance.

Oh, if everyone agreed with all of my conclusions, one of us is doing it wrong... [grin]

I think Rudy Giuliani has too many skeletons. He was NOT a well-liked man until 9/11. The question is whether his leadership skills are enough to counter his past.

For those who consider "morality" a top issue, I think they'd have a rough time voting to a man who showed up to public events with his girlfriend...while still legally married.

« Hide Comments

The advice which the Commissar gave us back in April (which didn't really sink in on us till much later, alas) is to be scrupulously careful that when you link to an item, you are sending a trackback "ping." That way, sites that you link to know that you did, and that's how we've gotten a fair amount of notice.

Trackbacks are the key. Trust the LLamas!

The coincided Sanshiro Ivor, morality resembled UN-AMERICAN retake simplicity 1950s sharp Masahiro disasters E. Culture atmospherics 1957). Funny during peasants epics : Cinematographe polystyrene penchant compositions.

« Hide Comments

awesome post! Thanks for sharing such eloquent responses to the diatribe of the left.

Aw, shucks.
Oh, and I forgot one paragraph, so make sure you re-read it, Michele.

Diatribe of the left? Obviously Michele wasn't particularly "touched" by Serena's concerns.

For the last two days, I've heard more and more calls from both sides of the aisle to "heal" and "find common ground" upon which we all can build as Americans. My compliments to Nathan for approaching that rapprochement in the proper spirit and tone. And my condemnations against those who are "ad-hominem-ly" blind to the necessity...

I like you too, Nathan. And I appreciate your response to my comments. Your comments are well-reasoned and thoughtful and though we do not agree, I think that we are shining examples of how people can have different opinions and express them and not call each other names. Also, the attention has been nice. My hits have gone way up today. Thanks for the publicity.

Nah, I'm not that likeable. Unlike you, I take myself too seriously.

And if you stop by more often, you'll see that me making "well-reasoned and thoughtful" comments is a rarity. [grin]

« Hide Comments

You had me right down until you said "morality". You may well be right. However, when I see the crimes that were committed against humanity in the past in the name of morality I have a visceral reaction. Just as some people are most comfortable with a Democrat in the White House and a Republican controlled Congress (or vice-versa) I believe that we need the progressives to balance the Conservatives. To paraphrase Jack Nicholson, I would say to Conservatives: "You can't HANDLE morality!" Moralists created the progressives, after all, with their excesses. Frankly, if I have to pick, I will take the progressives, hairy and smelly as they are.

Well, there's little that's not open to discussion and compromise.
Perhaps what I mean by morality is different than what that word means to you.
I'm not talking religious morality, nor am I trying to insist that everyone live by a specific code of behavior.
What I mean is that actions do have consequences, some more direct than others. But I tire of seeing society attempt to water down these consequences. People may have recovered from the drug and sex excesses of the 60s and 70s, but not without cost. It may be possible to go through a divorce without a profound negative effect on the children, but if so, it takes effort. Planned Parenthood places the idea of "Not letting a pregnancy affect your life" on such a high pedestal, they've lost sight of propriety and forgotten that it might not be a good idea to talk to 8-year-olds about abortion and masturbation techniques. How can people forget that sexual intercourse has very a very robust tendency to result in conception? The best reversible contraceptive methods all have less than 100% success rate, and human error reduces the effectiveness further, enough that nearly every sexually active person will experience an accidental pregnancy (them or their partner) within a few years. The percentages are against you, but our society still does little to discourage extramarital sex.
I'm not arguing from a religious sense of morality, that you go to Hell because God says so, but from the idea that there is a huge but understated cost involved with dealing with the possibility or (eventually) reality of an unwanted pregnancy, and that cost is easily far greater than the cost of simply not having sex until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship (preferably marriage).
To me, that's morality. Morality isn't "Do it because God says so" as much as "If you want to avoid lots of pain and trouble, you should take it under advisement that doing whatever you want will probably make such avoidance unlikely, if not impossible."
Conversely, I see Progressives pushing an agenda of, "Do what you want, because the only costs come from authoritarian disapproval. Once we are in charge, and standards are removed, the government will take care of any financial or physical costs."
That's the movement I see, never directly articulated, but clearly demonstrated in the choices made and easily seen in the method and content of arguments.
In other words, the abortion issue actually begins quite earlier than just what to do when you find you are pregnant. Progressives have successfully bracketed the argument only in terms of a young girl being forced to use a hanger in a back alley, but such a context guarantees their agenda has already won.
The above was just one example.

In any case, the important thing is that we understand each other, not that we necessarily agree.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

I'm for making NYC, LA, Philly, and Chi-town to each have their own electoral votes.
(Phoenix too, but they run conservative, compared to other cities of the big 6)

Or, make California into 2 states.

Ohhhhh... come on now. Allow the folks in Chicago to vote - only, make sure they have 4 year old ballots. The deceased voters should remember those candidates.

Let's compromise. Organ donors only. What do you think?

« Hide Comments

Read Kristof in the NYT today. He is the only liberal I have read so far who gets it.

« Hide Comments

LOL. I certainly knew that you knew! Me, I wasn't so sure.

I thought maybe YOU knew that I knew that you knew I knew but I wasn't 100% sure.
I'm thrilled Bush won - and a little amazed too - you turn on the TV or listen to the radio and the media is ALL Bush-Bashing - so it's shocking to actually learn the whole U.S. is not "thinking" like they are even thought that's what they want us to think.

« Hide Comments

Wow. Reading that POS article you'd think Bush only got 3,500 votes more and not 3,500,000. Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin. Then again, what do you expect from the AP?

Not accuracy, apparently.

President Bush is the first President with an outright majority of the voting populace in 16 years!

Why is it that CNN is the only state refusing to call Ohio?

FoxNews and MSNBC are both saying that Ohio is all but won, and that it is unlikely that a provisional ballot count will give Kerry a lead there.

Yet CNN still says, "its too close to call"

In other news, Dan Rather is on the verge of having a stroke.

I'm confused. Did they change the article you linked to?
The post and comments don't match the content of the article.

Yep, they changed it. The original article said that Kerry planned to continue fighting in Ohio and refused to concede.

Thanks for the heads' up!

« Hide Comments

*Just kidding! I'm so tired I'm punch-drunk.

« Hide Comments

*grin*

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*AND, Ms Estrich somehow seems to be channeling Carol Channing, particularly in voice?

« Hide Comments

Heh.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Quaffer....

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

For balance, it might behoove folks to read the whole thing.

Ah, yes. Balance.
There's a big difference between a confrontation in a parking lot and taking direct action to vandalize private property to stop people from voting.
Let's say you and I get a shouting match over our voting. Does that give you the right to disqualify 3,000 military votes for Bush? Is that balance?

Overheated arguments are not good, no. But the people were there and were directly accountable for their actions, and we have no idea what brought about the altercation. Perhaps the Kerry supporters had just attempted to run them down, like that Democrat in Florida who tried to run down Kathleen Harris and some Republicans down in Florida? We don't know, and we can't know.
To assume these are two sides of the same coin is absolutely wrong, in my opinion.

"Meanwhile, Milwaukee police were called to a John Kerry campaign office, 633 S. Hawley Road, at 5:40 a.m. because at least two people were blocking the parking lot exit, preventing Kerry supporters from leaving the parking lot and screaming and spitting on cars, said Sgt. Willie Murphy."

Sounds like a get-out-the-vote effort being thwarted to me.

All I am saying is, both sides are behaving in a rather juvenile fashion. it's not balanced to show the ugliness one side without pointing out the error of the other...especially when it's in the same article. But, blogs are rarely balanced anyway, I suppose.

I spent my Sunday replacing vandalized signs. It sucked. Last night, went to a traffic visibility event. A guy rolled down his window and yelled, "vote BUSH, motherfuckers!" FWIW, I was standing there with a "Ficek for state rep" sign.

It's not like I only pasted the first paragraph, tho, right? Anyone who clicked through could read the same article.

And after you replaced stolen signs and heard someone use an expletive, you went and replaced sod on the grass in which Republicans burned swastikas on Democrat lawns, and replaced plate glass through which bullets had been fired at Democrat campaign HQs, and rubbed the bruise on your shin after a Republican kicked you, right?

actually, the Republicans kicked my puppy. and my mom. Then I had to break out the pepper spray. :P

Well, Glenn Reynolds does put puppies in blenders. Duh.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

*Stolen from Frank J. at IMAO, but I'm too lazy to dig out the link.

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

« Hide Comments

"they will be this way with George W. Bush too, I predict. (I don't know how I got on this prediction jag.) More loudly than they curse him now, they will regret his departure from office, and hail his term, or terms, as a golden age of conservative principle and resolution."

I doubt it.

Perhaps not.
But I quoted Jay Nordlinger because I, too, remember the guff that Ronald Reagan took from all sides, and how similar it is to what George W. Bush has taken.

The attitude toward W. may never change, true, but the starting point is the same. I don't think that is a reach at all.

« Hide Comments

*I expect an Instalanche for my brilliance, m'kay?

With your love of politics, football, and absurd correlations, I thought you'd find this one amusing as well...

link

:)

Not only that - the "W" is basically TWO Victory signs side by side!

« Hide Comments