Conservathink

We're not dead yet! Election 2010 LIVE!

2010-11-02T17:45:00.073-04:00

Hey, all! I'm resurrecting Conservathink literally just in time for the 2010 mid-term elections. CAN YA FEEL IT?!

Anyhoo - the first polls in Indiana and Kentucky's eastern region close at the end of the hour, so here's what I predict:

FOR THE HOUSE: Assuming the Gallup model is correct and Republicans have a strong double-digit lead, we're looking at 60-plus net House seats. I want to be cautious, but I'll just say that if we go into the 70's, I would not be shocked. That having been said, modern-day gerrymandering is an art. GOP loses DE-AL and LA-02. I'm not making a call for IL-10. HI-01 I think leans Djou.

FOR THE SENATE: Nine seats. If the polls are wrong, 10 or 11. I think Washington is a safer bet than California or West Virginia. If we can get either or both of the latter two, it's a rout. No GOP seats lost.

FOR THE GOVERNORSHIPS: Plus seven, possibly plus eight. Chafee wins Rhode Island as an independent, and I wouldn't count out Tancredo's ACP bid in Colorado. Expect losses in CA, HI, MN and possibly VT, but the last one has barely been polled, so it's the least likely to flip of the four. HI may be an upset, due to close polls there, but it's still a very, very liberal State, so I'm not that emotionally invested.

AND NOW WE WAIT.

19:00 - REPUBLICANS GAIN INDIANA'S OPEN SENATE SEAT AND HOLD THEIR KENTUCKY SEAT

19:30 - REPUBLICANS HOLD OHIO SENATE SEAT; GOVERNOR'S RACE TOO CLOSE TO CALL

19:45 - DEMOCRATS HOLD HOUSE DISTRICT KY-03 - CONSIDERED A LONG-SHOT GOP PICK-UP

20:00 - FIFTEEN STATES CLOSE - REPUBLICANS HOLD FLORIDA SENATE SEAT, DESPITE CRIST INDIE CHALLENGE; DEMOCRATS HOLD CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE AND MARYLAND SENATE SEATS; REPUBLICANS HOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE, MISSOURI AND ALABAMA SENATE SEATS; DEMOCRATS HOLD NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR'S SEAT

20:10 - REPUBLICANS HOLD GEORGIA SENATE SEAT; ILLINOIS SENATE, GOVERNOR'S RACES TOO CLOSE TO CALL; FLORIDA GOVERNOR'S RACE TOO CLOSE TO CALL; PENNSYLVANIA SENATE, GOVERNOR'S RACES TOO CLOSE TO CALL

20:23 - FLIPS IN THE HOUSE: DE-AL GOES DEMOCRAT; FL-24 AND IN-08 GO REPUBLICAN; REPUBLICANS HOLD NORTH CAROLINA SENATE SEAT

20:30 - REPUBLICANS DEFEAT DEMOCRATIC ARKANSAS INCUMBENT, BUT DEMOCRATS HOLD GOVERNOR'S SEAT; REPUBLICANS GAIN OPEN TENNESSEE GOVERNOR'S SEAT

20:33 - REPUBLICANS GAIN HOUSE SEAT VA-05

20:37 - DEMOCRATS HOLD WEST VIRGINIA SENATE SEAT, CRUSHING REPUBLICAN HOPES FOR A SENATE MAJORITY

20:39 - REPUBLICANS GAIN HOUSE SEATS FL-08; VA-09

COMMENT: I sort of hoped for a Democratic Senate, since it would be one less thing Obama could hold against the GOP. If there's gridlock, we can say, "Uh, you still have power, and you don't know how to use it, just as you didn't when you had supermajorities. Idiot."

20:44 - REPUBLICANS GAIN HOUSE SEAT IN-09; HOLD OKLAHOMA SENATE SEAT

20:58 - SARAH PALIN INTERVIEW: Palin regrets West Virginia loss but notes the only way Manchin won was by distancing himself from the liberal Democratic Party. Palin notes that O'Donnell lost in a "deep blue State", an unsurprising disappointment. Palin notes Rand Paul's libertarian leanings.

21:00 - NEW YORK SENATE AND GOVERNOR'S RACES GO DEMOCRAT, AS EXPECTED; REPUBLICANS GAIN NORTH DAKOTA SENATE SEAT AND KANSAS GOVERNOR'S SEAT AND HOLD KANSAS SENATE SEAT; ALSO, REPUBLICANS HOLD SOUTH DAKOTA SENATE SEAT, WHICH WAS UNOPPOSED; REPUBLICANS GAIN MICHIGAN GOVERNOR'S SEAT; REPUBLICANS HOLD TEXAS GOVERNOR'S SEAT; WISCONSIN SENATE AND GOVERNOR'S RACES TOO CLOSE TO CALL; REPUBLICANS WIN HOUSE SEAT VA-02

21:12 - FOX NEWS PROJECTS REPUBLICANS WILL GAIN ABOUT SIXTY HOUSE SEATS, BASED ON MATHEMATICAL MODELLING

21:13 - Palin agrees a 60-seat gain is "an earthquake". Palin says Democrats will need to reach out to Republicans, given the House gains.

21:18 - REPUBLICANS GAIN OKLAHOMA GOVERNOR'S SEAT; DEMOCRATS HOLD MARYLAND GOVERNOR'S SEAT; REPUBLICANS HOLD SOUTH DAKOTA AND ALABAMA GOVERNORS' SEATS

21:24 - BARNEY FRANK HOLDS HIS HOUSE SEAT (MA-04); GOP GAINS FL-02 AND NH-01; REPUBLICANS HOLD LOUISIANA SENATE SEAT

21:45 - ILLINOIS, PENNSYLVANIA AND WISCONSIN SENATE RACES STILL TOO CLOSE TO CALL

21:51 - GOP GAINS HOUSE SEATS TN-08 AND TX-23; GOP HOLDS NEBRASKA GOVERNOR'S SEAT

22:00 - REPUBLICANS HOLD ARIZONA AND IOWA SENATE SEATS; GOP GAINS IOWA, PENNSYLVANIA AND WYOMING GOVERNOR'S SEATS; DEMOCRATS HOLD MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR'S SEAT

22:09 - DEMOCRATS HOLD HOUSE SEAT NC-08 NARROWLY - HE WAS A MAJOR GOP TARGET; GOP WINS PA-03, PA-11; GOP GAINS WISCONSIN GOVERNOR'S SEAT

22:20 - DEMOCRATS HOLD COLORADO'S GOVERNORSHIP, WITH THE REPUBLICAN UNDER 10%; GOP GAINS GA-08

SARAH PALIN V. GERALDINE FERRARO TIME

Ferraro claims this ISN'T the political earthquake predicted. Palin discusses voter frustration leading to GOP gains. Palin notes Nancy Pelosi's verbal blunder when she said people would find out what was in the Obamacare bill once it was passed. They discuss women in politics, Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" campaign and Ferraro's refusal to attack Palin as a woman, as opposed to as a conservative. Palin says she expected to be a sports commentator, not a Vice-Presidential candidate.

22:32 - GOP GAINS HOUSE SEATS PA-07, PA-10, LA-03 AND MD-01

22:36 - REPUBLICANS HOLD UTAH SENATE AND GOVERNOR'S SEATS; GOP WINS HOUSE SEAT MI-01, MS-01 AND OH-18

22:39 - REPUBLICANS DEFEAT SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD OF WISCONSIN; REPUBLICAN NIKKI HALEY ELECTED SOUTH CAROLINA'S FIRST FEMALE AND INDIAN-AMERICAN GOVERNOR

22:51 - GOP GAINS SC-05, KNOCKING OFF CHAIRMAN OF BUDGET COMMITTEE JOHN SPRATT, THE FIRST MAJOR CHAIRMAN TO LOSE; GOP ALSO GAINS ND-AL AND IL-11

23:00 - BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) DEFEATS CARLY FIORINA - REPUBLICANS CAN NOT WIN THE SENATE NOW; DEMOCRATS WIN THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S SEAT; GOP HOLDS IDAHO SENATE AND GOVERNOR'S SEATS

23:10 - REPUBLICANS HAVE GAINED 34 SEATS, DEMOCRATS TWO, AND IT'S NOT OVER YET

23:19 - NATIONAL EXIT POLL DATA: 54% DISAPPROVE OF OBAMA AND 45% APPROVE; 40% SUPPORT THE TEA PARTY AND 31% OPPOSE IT; 56% BELIEVE GOVERNMENT DOES TOO MUCH; 50% OF WOMEN VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS, TO 48% REPUBLICAN

23:35 - REPUBLICANS WIN NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR'S SEAT, MAKING SUSANA MARTINEZ THE STATE'S FIRST FEMALE GOVERNOR AND THE NATION'S FIRST WISE LATINA GOVERNOR

23:49 - ALLEN WEST WINS FL-22, MEANING TWO BLACK REPUBLICANS WILL TAKE OFFICE IN THE HOUSE

23:52 - REPUBLICANS WIN OHIO'S GOVERNORSHIP

00:00 - DEMOCRATS HOLD HAWAI'I SENATE SEAT

00:11 - REPUBLICANS RETAIN NEVADA GOVERNOR'S SEAT AND WIN PENNSYLVANIA'S SENATE SEAT

00:17 - THE GOP GAINS OBAMA'S ILLINOIS SENATE SEAT

00:27 - SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID PROJECTED TO HOLD HIS SENATE SEAT

00:29 - IKE SKELTON, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, LOSES (MO-04)

00:39 - REPUBLICANS GAIN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE, OFFICIALLY; THEY HAVE 218 SEATS, TO DEMOCRATS' 147

00:43 - LINCOLN CHAFEE WINS THE RHODE ISLAND GOVERNORSHIP; HE WILL BE THE ONLY INDEPENDENT GOVERNOR IN THE COUNTRY - THIS IS A REPUBLICAN LOSS

01:00 - POLLS CLOSE IN ALASKA - NO RESULTS YET; COLORADO AND WASHINGTON STATE SENATE RACES TOO CLOSE TOO CALL

01:19 - ALASKA SENATE: JOE MILLER TRAILS "WRITE-IN" 39-34%; DEMOCRAT SCOTT McADAMS HAS 25%

02:23 - DEMOCRATS WIN THE HAWAI'I GOVERNORSHIP, AN EXPECTED GOP LOSS

02:42 - Time for me to sign off. The Senate was a disappointment, but I still think it's advantageous not to control all of Congress when running against an incumbent President, so he can't claim that Congress is obstructing him. Then again, as I said before, he didn't get much done with supermajorities in both Houses. Ah, well. On to 2012!

"A Fun House in a Dark House"

2010-07-14T12:00:00.017-04:00

Today marks the launch of a Web site run my one of my all-time favourite college professors, Terrence Ross. As a communications-journalism major, I have had four classes with him (specifically, three in communications and one an Honors seminar which utilised film).

Professor Ross is something of a fixture on our campus. A student who has had a class with him and didn't leave it with a positive word is a very rare thing - sober Irishman rare. Clean Frenchman rare. Literate Swede rare, even!*

The site he has created may disturb some of you because it deals with that most morbid of topics: Murder

Indeed, Murdered: Intersecting Memoirs is a fascinating site designed to provoke thought about that most forbidden of questions: Can one sympathise with a murderer?

Many may dismiss "Murdered" as a hopeless foray into moral relativism, but that would be a very unfortunate decision. This is an extraordinarily cohesive look at how five high-profile murders on the Lower East Side of Manhattan impacted both his life and the lives of others as well as what circumstances may have led those murders to occur. It does not draw conclusions for the viewer but rather, presents many conclusions and questions for the sake of stirring debate.

I implore you to give Professor Ross' site a visit. Even if you don't agree with it, you can't deny that it's a fun romp of a place, with plenty of nooks and crannies on which to click. Fully-narrated videos, clever sound effects and great message boards and quizzes make this a can't-miss site for those with even a mote of curiosity about a place where an open mind and an insatiable intellect are one's best self-defence.

Murdered: Intersecting Memoirs

*Note to my Swedish readers: I only mean this in jest. We are well aware of your proficiency with pop-up books, and for that, we salute you.

Why I love Greg Gutfeld

2010-07-11T23:59:00.002-04:00

The following is an excerpt from Greg Gutfeld's amazing, hilarious and downright sexy new book, The Bible of Unspeakable Truths (And yes, I am copying this manually, without the assistance of a scanner or similar device. You're welcome.):

The Folk Guitar Ruined Catholicism
I was born and raised a Catholic and served as an altar boy from third to eighth grade. During those time I attended mass weekly, often because I'd get three bucks for working funerals (and free sips of wine). Now, at this point, I bet you're expecting me to start telling you how I became a lapsed Catholic. Or, how I came to hate all organized religion. That's what Catholics in the media do: They immediately denounce or make fun of their religious upbringing whenever the opportunity presents itself.
I won't do that.
I will never rag on Catholicism. However, I will tell you why I stopped going to mass: folk guitar.
I am not the first person to say that Catholic mass is boring, and it takes a lot to expect kids to sit through it. Think about it: Mass is an even based on repetition - and once you know the pattern, your brain simply follows it impatiently. How many of us have been there and thought: "Okay, that's the Our Father. Next up Lamb of God; then communion - I could really go for some doughnuts. I think someone farted. Oh yeah - me."
But I can take boring. What I can't take are earnest attempts to combat boredom: deliberate but feeble efforts to appear contemporary, when really, you should be playing up the ancient part of mass instead (like ritual sacrifice). That's why I hate the folk guitar. Because when you have a a folk guitar, you can bet your sweet religious ass there will be a folk singer attached to it. And the songs warbled will be bad enough to force Christ to come down from the cross and beat the crap out of him/her/it. You just know Jesus hated "Kumbaya." Mass is supposed to be cold, medieval, and dirgy (if that's a word) - a rejection of touchy-feely intimacy.
The last straw for me? The exchange of pleasantries - that "peace be with you" moment that usually involves a handshake or an awkward nod. I know it's supposed to be nice, but if a pleasantry is forced, how can it be seen as "nice"? It's not authentic if it's the product of peer pressure. Plus, and more important: Who wants to shake the hand of some old fart with a handkerchief full of snot curled up in his or her fist?
I do, but I'm probably in the minority.

America... Ameriiica...

2010-07-04T00:50:00.001-04:00

Just a warning: Explicit lyrics ahead.* *But really, if you can't handle some naughty lyrics, you're a total pussy and have no business reading my blog.

So, where has your humble blogger been?

2010-06-30T23:59:00.007-04:00

HAI ALL!Okay, first off - yes, it's July as I write this, but I didn't want the little "June" link in my 2010 archives to be barren, SO THIS IS DATED JUNE 30 AND STFU.'Kay. So, here's what's been going on.

As most of you already know (and I say that because I assume the only traffic I get is from people who know me personally), I am a communications-journalism major. I am starting my senior year in college (which is really saying something, insofar as I started this blog when I was a high-school sophomore), and I need to get my foot in the door with an internship.So, I applied to that most evil of institutions. The most villainous, vile, FASCIST of propagandistic outfits:FOX NEWS(CUE LIGHTNING AND THUNDERCLAP)Sadly, I will not know if I got my internship until AUGUST; I did a telephone interview with their recruiter last week. I think it went well. Then again, I thought John McCain was the most viable candidate in the last Presidential election. OOPS.Anyhoo - I applied for the "Brainroom" (research) division, then radio, then Web news. Given my experience as Media Matters debunker at C4P, I think I'll do just fine in the Brainroom. But my years as co-host of LeftRightNow* on PAWS Web Radio, my college's Web (but only on-campus because our administration is BAHHH) radio station, would serve me well at Fox News Radio. Web news is... obvious, but it's really just a throwback choice, since I had to put my top-three preferred areas of interest.I suppose there's not much else left to report other than my beloved godfather passed away last Wednesday. I miss him terribly, but he had stage IV brain cancer, so I'm glad his suffering is over. And, if I'm guessing correctly, and I believe I am, he's happier now than he ever was on Earth.Again, my Twitter account is far more active than this blog, so don't forget to read me there!*I am not nearly as fat now as I was when that photograph of me was taken.

Empire Nanny State of Mind

2010-05-20T12:00:00.000-04:00

When it comes to personal freedoms, the State and the individual are more often than not at odds. Not content merely to do their jobs and leave their constituents alone, our elected representatives have seen fit to play the part of intrusive busybodies, Hell-bent on regulating, taxing, and even banning every little thing which might do us an iota of harm. Because it’s for the common good, you see.

New York is ground zero for the State-sponsored attack on personal choice. It started with seemingly reasonable policies, such as barring smoking from New York City restaurants, but then Mayor Michael Bloomberg – a man of brilliant business sense but very little common sense – decided that artificial trans-fats had to go, too. Governor David Paterson, facing massive budget deficits, has proposed a new tax on sugared beverages, such as soda. And now, State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced a bill forbidding the use of salt in the preparation of restaurant food.

Reaction to Ortiz’s bill has been overwhelmingly negative, even drawing criticism from Bloomberg himself, despite his having introduced his own salt-reduction measures for New York City. The key difference is that Bloomberg’s proposals are voluntary – for now, but Ortiz’s is mandatory, slapping restaurants with a $1,000 fine for each violation. Ortiz now claims that his intent is only outlawing the use of salt “as an additive,” not as “a functional component of the recipe.”

Ortiz is either a liar or an illiterate because that’s not what his bill says. The bill explicitly states: “NO OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A RESTAURANT IN THIS STATE SHALL USE SALT IN ANY FORM IN THE PREPARATION OF ANY FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION BY CUSTOMERS OF SUCH RESTAURANT, INCLUDING FOOD PREPARED TO BE CONSUMED ON THE PREMISES OF SUCH RESTAURANT OR OFF OF SUCH PREMISES.”

Nanny Felix claims that this is a matter of public health. His father had a heart attack due to high blood pressure caused by a diet full of excess salt, so he’s taken it upon himself to make sure we’re all healthy – or we’ll get punished for non-compliance.

Never mind the fact that salt is an essential ingredient in cooking; it makes food taste good. People want to eat salt. People know too much of it is bad for them, but they continue to consume it in excess. People choose – that scary, independent-minded word – to eat salt. But because of his father’s poor choices, we must all atone for the sins of Ortiz the Elder.

Of course, the salt ban is about as likely to become law as Kanye West is to pass a basic etiquette test, but the beverage tax is another story. Paterson wants to levy one cent on every ounce of non-diet sodas and other sugared drinks, a tax of about 18 percent.

Politicians love so-called sin taxes on non-essential products with proven health risks, such as cigarettes and alcohol, because they are seen as societal evils, as opposed to, say, increasing income taxes. (To his dubious credit, Paterson also proposed reinstituting the sales tax on clothing and shoes, because consumption taxes are such a boon to the economy during a recession. Idiot.)

Sin taxes affect all consumers and hit those who weren’t part of the problem even harder than the worst offenders of order in the nanny state dystopia. Indeed, the addictive properties of the taxed items – such as nicotine in cigarettes and alcohol in beer – negate the economic principle of price elasticity. Those hooked on beer, for example, will stay hooked and continue paying at jacked-up prices, and those who only occasionally drink beer will make even fewer purchases.

Paterson and other anti-liberty activists are calling the soft-drink levy an “obesity tax,” because, in theory, less sugar consumption means fewer fatties. Of course, this assumes that such a tax would actually work. The only way a soda sin tax would have any effect on public health would be by levying a tax so high, it would discourage even moderate consumers of soft drinks from purchasing them. Not to mention that the tax is inconsistent and discriminatory against soft-drink manufacturers in that it exempts certain drinks, such as juices, which are packed with sugar, and even whole milk, which contains sugar as well as fat and calories.

If Paterson really wants to put more dough in the public coffers, why not legalise commercial gambling? New York State loses millions of dollars annually to the loose slots in Atlantic City, in neighbouring New Jersey. But no – we can’t do that. Gambling is dirty and evil and must be prohibited.

To be fair, Paterson’s tax is by no means a new idea. West Virginia has had a soda sin tax for over 50 years. It is also our second-fattest State, behind only Mississippi, which also has such a tax, as do Alabama, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee – all of which rank amongst the most obese States. Two of the least obese, Colorado and Massachusetts, as well as the also-thinner District of Columbia, do not tax soda.

We must address the least controversial nanny-state regulation – the draconian ban on smoking in all New York City restaurants and bars, including private clubs. For the record, I find smoking repugnant. It is unhealthy and takes a toll on the lungs and wallet. But as with many things I find distasteful – getting tattoos, Michelle Obama wearing short shorts, reading Twilight – the fact that other people choose to engage in it does not bother me in the slightest.

Of course, smoking doesn’t just affect smokers. Second-hand smoke is an unhealthy nuisance in any setting, especially an enclosed space. But why does the role of air freshener have to fall to the State? Some dining establishments will voluntarily forbid smoking – as is their right – and some won’t. Those who wish to avoid smoking can vote with their feet, and market forces will dictate where people may smoke and where they may not.

It is worth noting that Bloomberg’s increase in the cigarette tax has had an apparent impact on smoking rates in New York City, especially amongst youth. But this begs the question: What does it say about us that we have allowed the State to accomplish what parenting should? For that matter, why are we rejoicing that the government is raising taxes, even on something as detestable as cigarettes? If we levied a one million dollar tax on cigarettes, it would obviously supersede the price elasticity-addiction problem and vastly reduce smoking, but at what cost? Why are we so giddy to give the State this power?

And what of the proven negative effects of raising cigarette taxes? Those who wish to pay less for their smokes may purchase them out-of-state or even on the black market. As David Harsanyi noted in his eye-opening book, Nanny State, cigarette bootlegging is a thriving business, bringing funds not just to petty crooks but even terrorists. Those accused of being part of the al-Qaeda sleeper cell near Buffalo were involved in cigarette bootlegging, and counterfeit cigarette tax stamps were found in an apartment of the Egyptian Islamic jihad cell that carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Given the likely uptick in black market cigarette sales driven by the Bloomberg’s levy increase, one could say that if you raise taxes, the terrorists win. Literally.

What’s frightening is that this is just New York. In other States and even at the Federal level, nanny-staters with nothing better to do are meddling in our most mundane affairs, be it Santa Clara county, in California, banning toys in children’s fast-food meals or the Food and Drug Administration forcing new limits on – you guessed it, salt! – in what we eat, there is literally nothing our government won’t try to regulate or restrict because we’re too stupid to be responsible for our own welfare.

Hell, as frighteningly utilitarian as it might sound, the obese and smokers live shorter lives, actually saving taxpayers money, because the sooner they die, the sooner their health care and Social Security costs go away. So, government intervention isn’t just morally suspect, it’s economically detrimental.

It’s honestly at the point where the nanny-staters are so mad with power as to become hilarious. Case in point: The San Francisco Board of Supervisors recently passed a resolution designating every Monday as “Veg Day” to encourage restaurants, grocery stores and schools to offer more varied vegetarian options to improve public health. San Francisco wants us to eat less meat? Now, that’s some food for thought.

I posted at C4P, AND Conservathink is five years old?! Brilliant.

2010-05-13T23:59:00.000-04:00

Yes, yes. 'Tis here.

And yes, Conservathink did indeed turn five Tuesday. Shame we missed that. Ah, well. Hope everyone had a great Ascension Thursday!

Alcohol legal. And all that jazz.

2010-05-03T23:59:00.002-04:00

Oh, right! I'm supposed to acknowledge my age or something. So, needless to say, I'm 21 now. Tuesday night, I drink. I don't yet have my licence, so driving isn't a concern.Thanks for sticking with Conservathink given my... blogging negligence. As a reminder, I have a far more active Twitter account.On a related note, Conservathink turns five next week! JOY!

HE IS RISEN

2010-04-04T06:32:00.000-04:00

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.-1 Corinthians 15: 12-14

"For God so loved the world..."

2010-04-02T23:59:00.004-04:00

"See from His head, His hands, His feet,Sorrow and love flow mingled down!Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,Or thorns compose so rich a crown?""Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!I crucified Thee."

Joe Biden Wins Elementary School Spelling Bee

2010-04-01T23:59:00.007-04:00

Joe Biden responds with trademark humility after spelling a word correctly.

Mrs. Peterson’s second grade class let out a gasp as Joe Biden, 67, pulled out a stunning upset in the class spelling bee over the expected champion, Piyush Sharma, 8.“It was really something,” Peterson, a teacher of 20 years at the Sidwell Friends School in Bethesda, Md., said, sneaking a swig of vodka as she made her way to the faculty lounge. “We weren’t expecting Mr. Biden to show up, but he just sort of bumbled into the room and started spelling various children’s words out of turn.”The final round pitted Biden against Sharma, the latter of whom flubbed “antidisestablishmentarianism,” forgetting the final “i.” Biden emerged victorious after receiving a rather controversial word choice: “hair plugs.”“It’s so unfair!” third runner-up Suzy Schmidt, 7, said as she stamped her foot. “That mean old man got a really easy word, and we all got tough ones! And after he won, he shook all of our hands, and he was really smelly!”Biden was visibly ecstatic as he received the first place prize, a paper disc covered in tinfoil, painted gold, and stapled to the end of a ribbon, which Peterson placed around his neck. Biden awkwardly high-fived several students and chest-bumped one child, sending him into a bookcase and subsequently, the nurse’s office.“I just wanted to let you all that this award is a big, f***ing deal,” Biden said as he wiped away a tear. “I won it not just for you little guys but for little guys everywhere – in Bethesda, Maryland; in Scranton, Pennsylvania; in [Insert downtrodden, blue-collar town here],” he continued as he read from prepared note cards.In response to those who questioned the fairness of allowing a grown man to compete against schoolchildren, a Biden spokesman issued the following statement:“Mr. Biden is a man of many talents, and his victory over his formidable opponent is just the latest evidence that nobody messes with Joe. The fact remains that spelling is just one of Mr. Biden’s many interests, which include drawing, playing checkers, and serving as Vice-President of the United States.”

Obama to British: Falk You

2010-03-08T22:30:00.000-05:00

It was once commonly held that the Sun never set on the British Empire. But following centuries of colonial rebellion, economic fatigue, and war, the dominion of the Crown steadily began to wane. Today, its only remnants are the United Kingdom itself and 14 tiny overseas territories, including Bermuda, Gibraltar, and the chilly, windswept archipelago known as the Falkland Islands.Located about 300 miles east of mainland South America, the Falklands have been a British possession since 1833. Ever since, Argentina has asserted sovereignty over the land it calls Islas Malvinas, despite the islanders’ rejection of this claim. Hostilities between the two countries came to a head in 1982, when Argentine forces mounted an invasion, eventually overtaking the Government House in the capital of Stanley.London’s retaliation was swift and efficient. In an operation lasting just over two months, Her Majesty’s Armed Forces crushed the Argentines and reaffirmed British sovereignty.The initial American response was one of sympathy with Argentina, then controlled by a faltering military junta which was seen as a counter against Communist influence in Latin America. President Ronald Reagan privately telephoned British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and begged her for a ceasefire, but the man known as the Great Communicator was scolded into silence by the woman known as the Iron Lady. Eventually, Washington relented, and the United States pledged its full support of the British, short of sending troops.The current situation in which the Falklands find themselves is far less dire than that of nearly three decades ago. Since 2007, Argentina has disputed new British claims on the sea floor around the Falklands and other remote island possessions in order to exploit possible natural resources – namely, oil. Last month, the Argentine government announced that all ships using its waters would require a permit to access the Falklands, South Georgia, or the South Sandwich Islands, all UK controlled. The problem is, Argentine maritime claims are so large that they render the islands isolated; there would be no viable water route to the territories without violating Argentina’s alleged boundaries.In February, a State Department spokesman said that the United States recognises the “de facto [that is, factual but not legal] UK administration of the islands but takes no position on the sovereignty claims of either party.” In other words, the United States refuses to acknowledge the legality of a nearly 180 year-old claim by its strongest ally, which is reinforced by the islanders’ declaration of self-determination, a principle the United States has historically supported, including recognising Kosovo’s independence in 2008. (Notably, Argentina does not recognise Kosovo, citing the “dangerous precedent” which would imperil its case for controlling the Falklands.)Ultimately, the United States’ stance on the Falklands is as unsurprising as it is disappointing. Since he began his term in office, President Barack Obama has downplayed America’s “special relationship” with the UK as well as sought to curry favour with the Latin American Left.During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Obama ran against the U.S.-Colombian Free Trade Agreement and smeared conservative Colombian President Álvaro Uribe’s government with protectionist trade union lies that it was providing insufficient safety to labour leaders and not prosecuting their killers. In fact, the opposite has been true.Just last year, the Obama Administration attempted to meddle in the lawful removal from office of Manuel Zelaya, the Left-wing President and would-be dictator of Honduras, by the country's parliament. Despite the blessing of both the Congressional Research Service and the Law Library of Congress, the Administration declared the removal a “coup” and demanded Zelaya be reinstated. To be fair, Zelaya’s subsequent exile and the interim government’s suspension of constitutional rights were major errors, but the Administration expressly condemned the removal itself.Given Obama’s past actions in Latin America, it should astonish no-one that he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have refused to step on Argentina’s toes now that it too has a Leftist executive in the form of President Cristina Fernández, an incompetent, corrupt buffoon who has taken a page from the old junta’s playbook and appealed to Argentine jingoism to boost her sagging popularity.Clinton’s recent statement that “we want very much to encourage both countries to sit down” “demonstrate[s] a clear shift in U.S. policy from neutrality… towards siding with the Argentine position of pressing for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations,” noted British commentator Nile Gardiner in The Daily Telegraph. It also clashes, Gardiner elaborated, with both Clinton and the President’s past support of respecting “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states.” The United States is no longer merely neutral on the Falklands question; it is actively working against the British.Prime Minister Winston Churchill coined the phrase “special relationship” when referring to the Anglo-American partnership. From the Second World War on, the United States has had no closer ally and friend than the United Kingdom. But the Obama Administration sees things a bit differently.White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has insisted on downgrading American relations with the British to that of a “special partnership.” Obama said the UK was only “one of our closest and strongest allies” and declined to hold a customary joint press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown during his recent visit to the United States. A State Department official scoffed to The Sunday Telegraph, “There’s nothing special about Britain. You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment.”Right, and one supposes there’s “nothing special” about the fact that the only other country with troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq that are worth a damn is the UK. One supposes there’s “nothing special” about the nearly 450 British troops who have perished in the War on Terror. Yes, exempting those nasty facts, one could indeed conclude that there is “nothing special” about our British friends.In keeping with Obama’s consistent inconsistency, the Administration has reversed itself on Honduras and softened its anti-Colombia rhetoric. One might hold out hope for a similar backtracking on the Falklands situation, but it appears alienating America’s once-best ally is one issue on which Obama can be reliable.This President was heralded for bringing in a new age of international cooperation and restoring impaired alliances with old friends. Instead, he has chosen to accommodate shady kleptocracies and estrange the United States from its truest, closest friend. The Obama Doctrine appears to be: With friends like the U.S., who needs enemies?

Enjoy my funny post what I wroted.

2010-02-01T23:59:00.001-05:00

Here it is.Go forth, and laugh, my children.

Cartoon of the Day

2010-01-29T16:16:00.001-05:00

State of the Union, 2010

2010-01-27T20:48:00.065-05:00

NOTE: SCROLL BOTTOM-UP TO READ IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER11:18 - Interview closes with Sarah saying she was concerned that Obama dedicated so little of his address to national security. Aaaaand that's it for tonight's coverage. Good night, everybody!11:17 - Sarah says Americans don't are sending Obama a message through recent elections and the tea party movement that they don't want this health care bill.11:15 - YES!!! Hannity noted that Alito shook his head at Obama's attack on SCOTUS. He mouthed, "Not true." EPIC. Sarah says that this shows how Americans are disenchanted with a President who does, in fact, say things that are not true.11:14 - Sarah says the speech will be scrutinised by fact-checkers and that we will see a lot of the details come out tomorrow.11:13 - Sarah says that Obama was not as inspiring as we're used to. She says we want the health care bill killed. Damned straight.11:12 - SARAH! She says that there was "an awful lot of lecturing going on." She wished Obama called for more individual empowerment, rather than Government intervention.11:00 - Outside of Sarah's analysis, I will spare you all from Hannity.10:59 - Stoddard: Obama was tough, especially with his first veto threat, but he hammered essentially dead legislation, like ManBearPig. Hayes: "It was a tone-deaf speech." Well said.10:58 - Krauthammer: Obama's substance is the same; his words are different. Williams: Obama is still teh awesome.10:57 - Beckel: There will still be partisan bickering.10:56 - SARAH: In a word, the address was a "lecture". McDonnell understands the role of Government.10:55 - Bob Beckel: Obama rallied liberals and put Republicans on the mark. Or something.10:54 - Joe Trippi liked the speech. From what I can tell, it's because he's a partisan hack, rather than actual, substantive points. Natch.10:53 - Rove noted that Obama said "I" 96 times and argues his trade policies are vague.10:52 - SARAH'S FIRST PANEL DISCUSSION. Three men are also on the panel. I think one is Karl Rove. My room-mate just said, "He looks like he's going to die soon." Because he's fat. Heh.10:47 - Hayes says this was a night of contrast. The differences between the two parties have never been starker than tonight, especially with regard to the role of Government and economics.10:46 - Stoddard and Williams echo Krauthammer. Williams said we "had to endure Bobby Jindal" last year. Heh.10:44 - Krauthammer liked the response. He said the campaign season has begun and that the setting gave McDonnell a position of strength. Past responses came off as meagre. He noted how the Christmas Day bomber was absent from Obama's speech but not McDonnell's.10:42 - We're at the third Founding Fathers reference. Response over. Very, VERY good. For cereal.10:41 - Scripture shout-out! And tied into HAITI no less. Boo-yah.10:40 - "Government closest to the people governs best."10:39 - Scotty Brown shout-out! He quotes his opposing using tax dollars to read terrorists their Miranda rights.10:38 - Support for charter schools is good, and children should not have to go to a crappy school because of their ZIP codes.10:36 - Virginia has explored oil and natural gas off-shore, the first East Coast State to do so.10:34 - Most Americans do not want to have a Federally-run health care system. Interstate insurance purchasing and tort reform rock; cutting Medicare and pushing it on the States, not so much.10:33 - McDonnell: "We want results, not rhetoric. We want co-operation, not partisanship."10:31 - This is interesting in that the response has a responsive, applauding audience. Anyhoo, McDonnell attacks unemployment and calls for the private sector to lead the way.10:30 - Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) delivers the response from the Virginia State House.10:28 - Steve Hayes says nothing of consequence, I think. Who really cares? The GOP response is coming. Obama's already old news.10:26 - A.B. Stoddard agrees that there was no centrist pivot.10:24 - Juan Williams says the speech helped Obama. Natch. But he criticised Obama for intimidating the Supreme Court. He says Obama rallied the Democrats to stand strong whilst they still have the numbers they do.10:22 - Charles Krauthammer says Obama DIDN'T pivot to the centre and that his attacking "Washington" is hypocritical, since he IS Washington.10:20 - Somehow, it's over. He spoke for approximately 70 minutes. He was interrupted 86 times for applause. I need a drink, but this is a dry campus. FAIL10:17 - Obama's description of politics "noisy... messy... complicated..." sounds like a really awkward sex life.10:14 - Barbara Mikulski looks like Jabba the Hutt.10:13 - Obama notes his Administration's civil rights division. OBAMA CALLS FOR AN END TO DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. Also calls for an end to pay discrimination based on gender. (Which, you know, doesn't really exist if you do the correct math. Stupid commie.)10:11 - Obama talks about supporting human rights around the world, including Haiti. The Haitian Ambassador to the U.S. is sitting behind Mrs. Obama.10:08 - Obama supports reducing our nuclear stockpiles. Cites JFK and... Reagan. That's OUR line. Thief!10:07 - We must support our troops when they come home. But of course.10:06 - ALL COMBAT TROOPS WILL COME HOME FROM IRAQ BY AUGUST10:05 - Why is Al Franken sitting behind the military people? What did they do to deserve that?10:03 - National security time! 9/11 unity has dissipated. We all love this country and are committed to its defence. Protecting people and "upholding values" are not mutually exclusive. Close-up of Janet Napolitano, who literally looks like a deer in headlights.10:02 - Obama essentially attacks Scott Brown by condemning the need for a super-majority to get stuff done (and, by proxy, end socialist stuff).10:00 - Obama says he never believed his election would usher in peace and post-partisanship. Except for the whole lowering the oceans and curing cancer thing.9:59 - Obama calls for transparency in earmarks. (Sarah Palin, again. Just sayin'.)9:58 - Obama bashes the Supreme Court for ending McCain-Feingold. Sam Alito is visibly shaking his head. WIN9:57 - Obama lies that he hasn't included lobbyists in his administration. Republicans note this with grumbling. RABBLE! RABBLE RABBLE!9:56 - "Let's try common sense!" (Sarah Palin.) "We face a deficit of trust." (Glenn Beck.) Plagiarist.9:55 - Obama is being a catty bitch tonight. He looks at the Republicans and explains "how budgeting works." Ass. More Bush-bashing. Ah, nostalgia.9:54 - Calls for pay-as-you-go what-not.9:53 - Bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit is called. Cute.9:52 - Pelosi won't STFU to Biden. Her head is moving so quickly behind Obama it looks like she's consuming him.9:51 - By adding a trillion dollars to our national deficit, I prevented the next Great Depression. I'm going to freeze all non-discretionary spending, and I'll totally veto stuff to do it.9:50 - Stuff was AWESOME in 2000, but BUSH (who he's totally not naming) effed it all up. REMEMBER THAT. Awkward silence.9:48 - Call Obama if stuff is abusive. Let's reform health care! REFORM IT NOW!9:46 - Health care is complicated and not going away. Stuff is going to suck a lot this year, so let's do something about it! OR ELSE YOU HATE SUFFERING PEOPLE9:45 - Michelle Obama is going to tackle childhood obesity by frightening fat children with her face. THERE I SAID IT9:44 - Health care time! Everything Obama says is met with laughter. Probably nervous laughter.9:42 - Obama promises a bunch of really cool-sounding college what-not that we totally can't afford. Also, Joe Biden is helping the middle class, or something.9:40 - "The best anti-poverty programme around is a world-class education." So, he's for vouchers now? Waiting...9:39 - Republicans stand and applaud at support of Panama and Colombia trade deals. Heh.9:38 - Obama says America must seek trade deals aggressively.9:37 - Obama calls for a doubling of American exports.9:36 - Obama calls for ManBearPig bill and mocks those who don't believe in "overwhelming evidence" of said PigBearMan, or whatever. So, middle ground: More clean, efficient energy is good, riiight? Nancy Pelosi jumps up like a bloody jackass.9:35 - Obama calls for tough decisions on drilling and more biofuels and clean coal technology.9:34 - Obama calls for more clean energy - INCLUDING MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. WTF?!9:32 - Obama claims he doesn't want to punish banks. Joe Wilson does not give appropriate response.9:30 - Obama calls the 2000's a lost decade. Notes reduction in income and housing bubble and speculation. Which he had NOTHING to do with as a Senator. Duh.9:29 - Obama wants to end tax breaks on businesses which send jobs overseas and give them to those who keep them here. You know, because the price to manufacture goods DOESN'T affect the average consumer.9:26 - The socialist and stupid tax on banks (which is socialist and stupid) will go to small businesses.9:25 - Obama notes - correctly - that the true engine of job creation is businesses. He asserts that Government can create conditions conducive to growth.9:24 - Obama calls for a new jobs bill, to a standing ovation.9:23 - Apparently, economists the world over love the stimulus! See, conservatives HAVE to love it! Or you hate progress!9:22 - So, the stimulus added many GOVERNMENT workers. Fun fact: He's done nothing for the private sector. Socialist nincompoop.9:21 - Obama claims there were lots of tax cuts, which the Republicans DON'T applaud. Obama notes that, to laughter. Nancy Pelosi stands and applauds like a Botoxed jack-in-the-box.9:20 - First partisan standing ovation: Obama calls for a tax on the banks.9:18 - Obama introducing the economy makes one dolt clap. He says the bank bailout was about as popular as a root canal and that he and everyone else needed it, but it was necessary. Root canal line makes Biden show his pretty capped teeth. Cut to Tim Geithner. CHRIST, is he hideous head-on.9:17 - First standing ovation line: Obama cites a hopeful letter and says that he is more hopeful for America than ever, or something. Then says our Union is strong. Joe Biden raises his hands as if to clap, then pauses because it was too early. Idiot.9:15 - Obama calls for an end to political bickering and for unity. Also, calls for Federal programme to turn lead into gold. (Just kidding.)9:13 - Obama starts with lots of historical references to put the current recession into perspective.9:11 - Obama starts actually speaking.9:09 - Obama reaches the podium.9:08 - Sarah Palin gives brief analysis, saying that GOP health care proposals, such as interstate insurance plans and tort reform, should not be held back by the Leftist agenda. But she's SUCH an idiot.9:06 - Obama enters the room. Not bad, for him.9:01 - The Cabinet member who is not at the speech (in case the place is, y'know, destroyed) is Sean Donovan, HUD Secretary. State Secretary Hillary Clinton is away for unrelated reasons.9:00 - It's 9 p.m. Do you know where your President is?8:58 - The Presidential Cabinet enters, shaking hands as the process along the main aisle.8:57 - First Lady Michelle Obama finds her seat as those assembled give her a standing ovation.8:55 - FNC's coverage of the SotU begins. Who wants to make bets he's ridiculously late to this speech like he was last year's?

Will Scott Brown win? Will pigs fly? Read on, reading readers!

2010-01-19T19:51:00.000-05:00

So, here's why I think Scott Brown will win... and by a fair margin.Masschusetts is one of the very few States where a plurality - almost half of voters, in fact - are independents. The State is so reliably Democratic because those independents are Democratic leaners, not registered Democrats, who make up a near-identical proportion to that of the national average (Republicans are at a major, major disadvantage in registration, however).Polling shows that even after adjusting for a major Democratic advantage, Brown is still ahead due to independents pulling strongly in his favour. Most voters approve of the late Senator Kennedy and President Obama, and they are divided or even slightly in favour of the health care bill. The problem is that Martha Coakley, frankly, sucks.For more on the subject, read Gallup's comprehensive analysis of voter registration in the Bay State.Over at Hot Air, a case is made that if polling is to be believed, pretty much any turn-out measure, even one which unfairly inflates the Democrats' advantage, shows Brown winning.Also, Nate Silver has a good statistical thingy about the race. Go, read!

What's this? Another C4P post?!

2010-01-06T23:00:00.000-05:00

'Tis here.Go. Read it. At C4P. Now.Happy Epiphany, everyone!

The 2009 Douche Bag of the Year Awards Entries Are Open!

2009-12-31T22:20:00.000-05:00

Old timers know the drill. Leave your nominees in the comments for "those whose actions were dubious, stupid, traitorous or just amusing for all the wrong reasons."Please note that any and all entries will be considered, regardless of ideology or party. I will post the "winners" sometime next week/month/year.Here are the "winners" from 2008 and 2007.Happy 2010, all!

And it came to pass...

2009-12-25T22:00:00.001-05:00

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." -Luke 2:14

I get interviewed on Blog Talk Radio!

2009-11-22T00:23:00.000-05:00

Our friends over at Team Sarah asked if one of us at C4P would like to be a guest on their Blog Talk Radio show, and yours truly took the plunge. Irma, from Prayer Warriors for Sarah Palin, also called in.It was a really great show! We discussed the Going Rogue book tour, Governor Palin's recent interviews and much, much more, including some troll callers!You can listen here. FYI, the only reason I said "uh" so much was because I was doing my best Obama impression.

YET ANOTHER C4P POST! I CAN HARDLY CONTAIN MYSELF!!! (EXPLODES)

2009-11-08T18:26:00.000-05:00

Here it is. Go to C4P now. I command you!

Off-year election predictions are fun!

2009-11-03T16:54:00.004-05:00

Hey, everyone. I'm going to be adding to this post later, but I wanted to get this part posted before the polls close in Virginia at 7 p.m. EST.I predict that Bob McDonnell will win the Virginia Governor's race by 15 points or more. The Deeds campaign has failed to get out the vote in any reasonable sense, and reports are he will even lose the liberal-leaning northeastern portion of the State. In fact, McDonnell wins by nearly 20 points, I would be unsurprised. This electorate is far more conservative, older and whiter than last year's. More McCain voters are coming out. Many Obama voters in this State would never have even registered if Obama's team were not as ruthlessly efficient as it was. That is why this longtime GOP stronghold went Blue last year, in addition to shifting demographics. I doubt Hillary Clinton would have won Virginia (although she could very well have won West Virginia, but that's for another day).I predict that Chris Christie will win the New Jersey Governor's race narrowly. Corzine and the Democratic machine may have good get-out-the-vote infrastructure, but independents do not like Corzine. And Obama is not on the ticket. Again, angry McCain voters are far more motivated to vote than Obama voters, and some Obama voters are fed up with Corzine, too. Also, Daggett will not play a major factor. This is not a Perot situation. In fact, more Daggett supporters consider Corzine their second choice than Christie. This will be a nail-biter, but last-minute polling shows Christie has the momentum.NY-23 will not just be a Conservative victory but a decisive one. Scozzafava voters will stay home or move towards Hoffman. Or they'll just vote for her anyway. Independents and conservatives - both Republican and unaffiliated - will move towards Hoffman in this traditionally GOP district.Mike Bloomberg will win easily - I live in the shadow of New York City. Even people who think Bloomberg shouldn't have extended his term are voting for him. Voter surveys from the pollsters I trust are sparse, but Bloomberg's vast wealth and high approval ratings should propel him to a solid win. I can't give exact figures because there are so many third parties, and again, polling is sparse. Bloomberg could get over 60% and sweep, or he could get a fair 10-point win. Hell, there's even a "Rent Is Too Damn High Party". "Damn" has since been removed from the ballot.The "everything-but-marriage" initiative will pass in Washington. The anti-same-sex marriage initiative will narrowly pass in Maine.UPDATE: I was right on everything except NY-23, and I have more to say on New York City in a moment.NY-23 proves that all politics is (are?) local. The Conservative candidate, Hoffman, did not live in the district and had little grasp of local issues. His opponent, despite being a Democrat in a Republican-heavy district, won because he had neither of these issues. This is still a partial victory, however, because after this debacle of an election, the RNC has pledged not to fund candidates in contested primaries. I feel strongly that there must be a place for moderates in the GOP, but you don't waste them on conservative-leaning districts. Run moderates in areas where they are absolutely needed, like Connecticut - and actual moderates, not Snowe/Collins types who betray conservatism on important fiscal matters.I was very unsure of the NYC race. I figured Bloomberg would win by less because his opponent was black and drawing heavily from that part of the Democratic base. Also, there were indeed those who liked Bloomberg but thought his term extension was wrong - as evidenced by exit polling showing his approval rating was 20 points higher than the percentage who voted for him. SurveyUSA had a poll showing Bloomberg ahead of Thompson by just nine points, but I figured enough undecideds would break for Bloomberg to give him more than a 10-point lead. As I said in my original analysis - which was far closer to the actual result and I feel stupid for deleting - money can't buy you everything.

Dick's Army Marches Along...

2009-11-02T23:59:00.007-05:00

Last time, on Conservathink...SCENE: The roof of Canterbury Cathedral. A large group of people, many of whom are clad in clerical garb, are frantically boarding a helicopter bearing the Vatican coat of arms and the words, "German Shepherd One".A biplane bearing a "Coexist" bumper sticker is flying off in the distance, piloted by a rather mannish woman wearing a United Nations T-shirt.Sensing that the biplane is about to strafe the crowd, the pilot of the helicopter shouts in a thick, Bavarian accent, "GET TO ZE CHOPPER! DO IT, NOW!!!"***Our special friends over at RichardDawkins.net apparently didn't take too kindly to our rather blunt criticisms of their Dear Leader's assessment of the Pope's overtures to Anglo-Catholics.Well, it appears that through the miracle of Google, one of Dick's dowdy denizens stumbled upon my humble blog:I couldn't help but go out and look at the reaction to this article on Catholic and other religious blogs (I guess because I'm a masochist, or something). It's about what you'd expect-- the Telegraph article mentioned above ("Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is vicious and crazy. The man needs help") is typical of the tone. Some of these people are truly deranged, though.I don't know whether one should be offended and hurt at these kinds of remarks, or proud to be hated by such people (and amused at their utter inanity). Honestly, the emotion I felt most often was pity, when I wasn't tittering over the sheer stupidity of remarks like "I won't even get into Dick's 'pimp' reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in 'The New Colossus', perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church." (Real quote, in a post titled "Richard Dawkins, kiss my misogynistic, bigoted, Anglo-Catholic arse." I hoped this was a Poe or at least a joke...no such luck.)Oh, Lisa. What am I to do with you? You're so offended by my reference to Dick as a "whore", but Dick's own name-calling warrants nary a peep. Convenient, that.See, name-calling is only name-calling if it's actually slander. If you say someone is a racist because he opposes President Obama's policies, that's slander. If you say someone is a racist because he burns crosses and effigies of his melanin-rich brethren, that's a rather fair assessment of his character.Now, when I say Richard Dawkins is a "whore", I don't mean that he walks the mean streets of Oxford in a halter top and fishnets, offering a Cleveland steamer to any John who opposes teaching Creationism in classrooms.No, I am referring to the Alan Grayson definition of the word. That is, "A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain."Dick is a scientist. Scientists are supposed to use the evidence before them to draw a conclusion. Science is a process involving logic and reason as opposed to emotion and, well, faith.So, when Dick says "dotty" things like how Catholics are sexist, homophobic, cannibalistic paederasts, who kill Africans with AIDS and abstinence and whose women are self-hating, it leads me to wonder,Who the diddly-f*ck does Richard Dawkins think he is?Seriously! Dick has claimed that, even after he began his murderous rampage which specifically targeted Roman Catholic clergy and nuns (amongst millions of others), was opposed by most German Catholics (who were by no means the originators of German anti-Semitism) and wished that Germany were Islamic because Christianity was an impediment to his plans, Adolf Hitler was, in fact, a Roman Catholic!There are only two possible reasons Dick says the things he says: He's an idiot, which is highly unlikely, given his academic credentials, or he's lying. And since we are only left with that option, we must confront why he lies about history as well as theology - such as the idea that Anglicans don't believe in Divine Eucharist (he glosses over what transubstantiation is - it's NOT synonymous with the transformation of the bread and wine; it is a philosophy about the change itself), and the Church does not lie about condoms' efficacy, which have up to a 15% failure rate, as opposed to abstinence, which has a 100% success rate - and his twisting of Benedict's call to personal responsibility during his African visit this year - which at no point mentioned condoms' efficacy - follows the anti-Catholic Left's repeated misrepresentation of the Holy Father's comments.The only other part of this sad atheist's screed I will parse is this: I don't know whether one should be offended and hurt at these kinds of remarks, or proud to be hated by such people (and amused at their utter inanity). Honestly, the emotion I felt most often was pity, when I wasn't tittering over the sheer stupidity....First off, hate isn't how we operate, dear. Per Luke.I certainly don't have to like you, but for some reason, I have to love my enemies. Who was it again Who said, "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?Having said all that, I wonder: Who should be pitying whom here? We have the promise of Eternal Life and subscribe to a philosophy of love and forgiveness. You look forward to eternal nothingness, an utterly empty non-existence, preceded by your philosophy of intolerance and hate.Yes, militant atheists, you are the intolerant ones. Religious people do horrible, atrocious things in the name of their faith, they believe some silly things and yes, they do sometimes halt legitimate discussion over seemingly common-sense notions like an Earth that's older than several thousand years.But, as a whole, they are not bad people.Your inability to fathom a voluntary system of rules and regulations which runs contrary to your own beliefs has led you to conclude that religion is inherently evil. You're almost, pardon the term, dogmatic on the issue.I'm not about to throw Pascal's Wager at you because, frankly, someone of strong intellectual fortitude who has determined that there is no God or gods should not feel coerced to believe in God out of fear of eternal damnation, contrary to his own rational conclusion.So, I have my own wager.Any atheist who can make a convincing case that an atrocity committed in the name of Christianity was possible only because of religious conviction will get me to renounce my faith as based on a faulty, indefensible system, whose very foundations are suspect, if not outright fraudulent.Since you can't, I'm declaring victory now.Oh, wait, am I being arrogant? Does my surety that I am correct flabbergast you? That is exactly how we feel when you do not merely proselytise for atheism but seek to - using your own word - poach converts from the faithful by tearing down their beliefs, rather than presenting a positive case for atheism.I guess you could say that being an atheist means never having to say you're sorry.Funny, isn't it, that the doing the exact opposite is the most important part of being a Christian?

Richard Dawkins, kiss my misogynistic, bigoted, Anglo-Catholic arse.

2009-10-27T17:02:00.001-04:00

You know who needs a serious fisking? Richard Dawkins. Let's get started, shall we?What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.Let me congratulate Richard Dawkins for acknowledging the closed-minded, outdated notion of the binary system of Good and Evil. Nietzsche would be scandalised.The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.Right, like how the Episcopal Church is now transferring funds from their charitable causes to funds dedicated to suing orthodox believers out of their houses of worship.The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast;If you mean we don't believe that Eucharist is literally the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, then you're just a tad off, Dick. And while you're at it, you might wish to have a word with the J-Man himself, as He didn't find His "cannibal feast" all that "dotty" in Mark 14:22-25, Matthew 26:26-29 or Luke 22:13-20.nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.Since when have British men ever possessed testicles?It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.Dick? Condoms are indeed ineffective when HIV is widespread throughout society. Even the United Nations admits that. God (or no God, in your case) forbid the Church promote "distort[ed]" moral values, like abstinence.Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.I'm afraid you've got it all backwards, Dick. It's Rowan who's an embarrassment, what with his kowtowing to the Brits' Islamic overlords, as opposed to Pope B-Unit (my nickname is better), who actually takes a damned stance on things, rather than simply letting society redefine Truth in the name of "tolerance".Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it? Maybe it will succeed.If by "poaching", you mean "welcoming" then, yes, you're absolutely right. After all, who would want to stay in a Church where if you tell the Truth, you get called names?If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?See above.For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they'll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they'll call 'an important point of theological principle'). They just can't stomach the idea of women priests.I don't believe men can give birth because it's biologically impossible. Is that deep-seated sexism re-labelled with a mendacious euphemism, such as "an important point of medical principle"?One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.Right. They're all unenlightened, backwards broads, you see, so they must be either ignorant or self-hating. Dick? My mother would like a word with you.For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste. Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.Never mind what Jesus said about marriage. Never mind what the Bible says - in the New Testament mind you! - about improper sexual relations. Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church is hardly alone in the abuse of minors (not to condone their poor handling of it but Dick is wrong to single them out as somehow exclusively and rampantly abusive).Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don't point towards sustainability. No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: "Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity."Well, you're right about one thing, Dick. Catholicism is hurting badly in the West, where your special brand of anything-goes morality and secularism is gaining "converts", shall we say. But your math is off. If 1,000 new priests were to join the ranks of the Church, that would be a rather paltry addition to the over 400,000 priests worldwide. I won't even get into Dick's "pimp" reference, since he is, for all intents and purposes, a whore himself, but I find it delightfully twisted that he modified the immortal words of Emma Lazarus in "The New Colossus", perhaps the greatest poem in defence of liberty, to mock those who are indeed denied their liberty within the confines of the dying, failed experiment that is the Anglican Church. Oh, and fun fact: Being a super-liberal, happily heretical "church" doesn't win you many new members.Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers." Sounds like a good trade to me.If by "nice", you mean "weak, indecisive and duplicitous", then right on. Anyone who disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church is free to leave. Unlike some denominations, they have held true to the Faith as instructed by Christ to the Apostles and carried on by the Church Fathers and their posterity. Anyone who dissents from Scripture and Sacred Tradition as held by Catholic doctrine really has no case, insofar as Church policy has remained largely unchanged for over 2,000 years. Anglicans, however, have seen their Faith hijacked by revisionists, heretics and other malcontents of the worst sort. They have been marginalised, scolded, robbed and otherwise abused, all in the name of "tolerance" and "equality", contrary to any semblance of either.Damian Thompson - I don't know him, I swear - is right. Dawkins needs help. But then again, so do we. And that is why we must turn to Christ, whose Cross is our only true Help, our only hope for Salvation. Would that the revisionists, in all of their progressive "wisdom", could look at that very Cross and feel just a touch of humility, rather than engaging in the self-aggrandising, destructive behaviour which has rendered their once-respectable Church a religious chimaera, hating, rather than loving, the Faithful; enabling, rather than ameliorating, sin; damning, rather than saving, souls.

New C4P post!

2009-09-28T19:42:00.000-04:00

Hey, y'all might want to skedaddle over to C4P, if'n y'all wanna read my latest post, I reckon.