Sepherim

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:44:00 +0000

I seldom have any desire to let someone else's article speak for me but today am making an exception. A fine Connecticut male known as BustingWingNuts posted this as a comment to the LL Cool J, Palin, Faux Flap. He says it about as well as it can be said. Note that he invites you copy and paste this wherever you see the teabaggers pushing their agendas.

Teabaggers are a misinformed, right-wing corporate media consumer who often fails to understand that BOTH major parties represent a corrupt plutocracy that steals from the middle class by taxing labor and profiting from corporate tax subsidies.

A teabagger also often fails to acknowledge that George W. Bush and his neo-conservative minions perpetrated one of the boldest and most egregious executive power grabs in the history of the United States. Furthermore, teabaggers mistakenly continue to blame a newly elected President Obama for all that ails the United States of America, based on a grossly flawed perception of reality (including latent racial prejudice) and despite the fact the U.S. economy collapsed on the previous administration's watch.

Teabaggers are also known to base their misguided, right-wing-media-inspired beliefs about President Obama on stupid conspiracy theories about totalitarian takeovers, FEMA camps, etc., despite the fact these very same theories have been circulating around on the Internet for years, and were originally ascribed to neo-conservative cabalists at a time when Barack Obama had not even entered national politics. Teabaggers also are known to be particularly paranoid, xenophobic and intolerant, especially with regard to immigrants and anyone who isn't white.

Additionally, teabaggers generally echo stupid myths about entitlement spending (it actually only accounts for about 1% of federal budget spending), have no idea that most poor people in America are not lazy, actually do work and don't want to be on welfare, and have no idea what socialism actually means or that socialist reform in this country is actually what allowed a middle class to flourish and ultimately make the U.S. one of the most prosperous nations in human history.

Furthermore, teabaggers incorrectly equate socialism with Stalinism, think a system that rewards greed (capitalism) is the divine preference (despite Gospel evidence to the contrary), and are shameless champions of a misguided belief in American exceptionalism. Teabaggers also fail to recognize the inherently unpatriotic nature of their failed every-man-for-himself ideology that ultimately vilifies anyone who supports public policy aimed at reaching out to fellow Americans in need. They celebrate an exploitative corporatocracy (holy creator of jobs, blah blah blah) while denigrating the little guy for being "weak."

Interestingly, teabaggers uphold an immoral, morbidly obese, twice divorced, draft-dodging, college dropout and known drug addict as their de facto leader, and are even known to advocate burning books. Of course, teabaggers fail to recognize the blatant hypocrisy within the GOP and tend to oversimplify all political debate and social issues, much like their pseudo-intellectual, fat-ass leader.

Finally, incredibly, teabaggers fail to recognize the hysterical double entendre associated with their proudly adopted teabag moniker.

Every village has its idiots, of course, but it's sad when citizens of any nation allow themselves to be whipped into a frenzy en masse by a state-run propaganda machine masquerading as a legitimate, fair, balanced and independent news organization. Teabaggers are right to believe the future of the U.S.A. is in jeopardy, but sadly they have not yet correctly identified the real enemy. Perhaps when teabaggers finally grow up and mature into thinking adults, they will see the right-leaning power establishment for the oppressive and cunning beast that it is.

Teabagger: We don't care that George Bush tripled the deficit and lied us into a war. The new administration only cut taxes for 90% of the population... fascists. Let's go throw some Lipton tea bags into a fountain!

Please copy and paste this wherever you see the teabaggers pushing their agendas.

Disgusted not strong enough

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:57:00 +0000

I have never before been ashamed of living a good part of my life in Norman, Oklahoma. Sadly, that day is gone forever. Twice in the last few weeks, the administrators of Norman Public Schools have caved in and kow-towed to the worst kind of reactionary parents.

First-

They deprived many of the students from experiencing being addressed directly by the President of United States. We have a very vocal, reactionary, minority of the American people who respect no one but themselves. They have no respect for the country. They have no respect for the Constitution. They have no respect for their community. They have no respect for their neighbors. They have no respect for their own children. While ill- and under-informed parents certainly have the right to deprive their own children of a marvelous educational opportunity, they have no right to intimidate others into spreading their ignorance across an entire school system. Thankfully, I know a few teachers who recognized the educational opportunity they were being given and took full advantage of it. For those who didn't, I'm sorry your students are going to be less well educated than those in other classrooms.

Following is the text of the district's policy regarding the President's Address.

INFORMATION REGARDING PRESIDENT OBAMA’S

ADDRESS TO STUDENTS

SCHEDULED FOR 11:00 AM (CST), TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8

The President of the United States will deliver a national address directly to

students on September 8 at 11:00 AM (CST). According to information provided

on the U.S. Department of Education’s home page at www.ED.gov, the President

will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take

responsibility for their learning.

The school district will not re-organize the school day or interrupt scheduled

instructional time to participate in this event as a district-wide initiative. Teachers

may choose to watch the address with their students on a classroom by

classroom basis where they determine it to be instructionally appropriate.

In keeping with current practice, parents who do not wish their child to view the

President’s address may contact the school’s principal in writing asking that their

child be excused from the activity and the request will be honored.

Shame on you, Norman Public Schools.

Now, even worse. Book banning is alive and well in Norman, Oklahoma. I never thought I would see the day when one reactionary parent and a misguided superintendent would again deprive Norman students of a remarkable educational experience. I encourage you to go to the district website and search on Ellen Hopkins. You'll find teachers who want students to know they have read her books, you will find her listed among the very best authors for children, and you will find a middle school calendar that lists an Ellen Hopkins visit with a question mark. However, there is no longer a need for the question mark. Now, Superintendent Joseph Siano has decided not to let Ellen come and speak to the students at Whittier Middle School. For the full story of how this deplorable situation came to be, see Ellen's blog, Manifesto!!!!

You want to see other links related to this story-just google Ellen Hopkins Norman. I wonder how they feel about this at the Ellen Hopkins Elementary School in Moorhead, MN? I hope you are proud, Joseph Siano, you just gave our wonderful city a big, black eye.

We Should All Be Disgusted

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:43:00 +0000

Thanks to internetshame.com for demonstrating that Jimmy Carter was right. Many right-wing extremist are absolutely racist no matter how much they whine.

I AM DISGUSTED

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:13:00 +0000

Usually I am in favor of dialogue to resolve differences, but to all those people out there whining because the President of the United States wants to tell their school children to work hard and stay in school, get over it. Presidents have been talking to school children for as long as I can remember, which is a long time. My very first memory was of President Eisenhower when I was in the third grade.

Just a few examples:

Ronald Reagan took questions from high school students at the White House in 1986, and the question-and-answer session was broadcast nationally. Reagan urged the students to stay in school and say no to drugs, but he also discussed overtly political matters, such as national defense funding, nuclear disarmament and -- in suprising policy detail -- taxes.

President George H.W. Bush gave an address to schools nationwide in 1991, from a junior high school in Washington, D.C. News reports from the time said the White House hoped that the address would be shown at schools nationwide, and Bush began his remarks by saying he was talking to "millions" of students "in classrooms all across the country."

And in the interest of fairness, I will not use the most famous of the George W. Bush pictures, but he made many school visits to gain support for his, in my opinion very ill-conceived, no-child-left-behind programs.

I am especially disgusted with those people who claim to be upholders of the constitution and then violate the constitution by not recognizing that Barack Hussein Obama is the constitutionally elected President of the United States. In other words, no matter how much you dislike and or disagree with him and his policies, HE IS YOUR PRESIDENT. So stop whining and talk with your children about the significance of what he has to say and how all of us need to be working together to get the country through these troubled times. We have too many real problems to waste time on trivial issues like this.

Bozo Redux

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:30:00 +0000

Bozo does it again.

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."

It's Time to Bring Bozo Home

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 15:10:00 +0000

Way back in 2008 many of us thought this camparison with Senator Jesse Helms was an insult to Bozo the Clown. So the rest of this article is done with apologies to Bozo. Back then, we could rest comfortably in the thought that the good people of North Carolina had to claim the Clown of the Senate.

But now we Okies have our own Bozo.

Color us proud.

Anyone who knows the history of Jim Inhofe knows he was a joke as a state legislature and then the voters of Oklahoma thought they would share their joke with the rest of the country and send him to Washington. For his first few years in Happy Valley he lived up to his own low standards and had one of the worst attendance records in the senate. But then, obviously way over his head and not too good at treading water, he discovered that one way to get attention was to make ridiculous statements. So now whenever the press needs a ridiculous statement to lighten up their retelling of all the things going wrong around us, they know they can always count on the good senator for Oklahoma to provide some comic relief. Unfortunately, a small, and hopefully shrinking, minority of citizens take what he says seriously. So the joke has gone on long enough. It's time for Bozo to go home and leave the governing of the country to those who have a clue.

I found this comment from Eagle4 with a Tulsa Word story about Inhofe's latest idiocy-

Inhofe remains one of the most uneducated, Redneck bumpkins on this flat planet! His stupidity makes him the poster child for Planned Parenthood! Just when you think you're totally flabbergasted by what he's said, he opens his mouth again and takes you to a whole new level!

The Incipient Racism of Southern Baptists

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:48:00 +0000

Richard Land needs to be very careful. The incipient racism that flows so easily just beneath the surface of many southern baptists tries to rear its ugly head in his recent statement concerning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. See Justice Sotomayor?—More for some, less for others?

He begins with a statement questioning the President's statement about most middle-class Americans not feeling particularly privileged. Yet it does not take very much listening to black Americans living in the Bible-Belt or Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans living many places in this country to realize that racial discrimination is alive and well. And any time or place there is this kind of discrimination, more often than not, it is white middle-class Americans who benefit from it.

Next he parrots one of the major talking point of the right wing media about the president's pre-selection statements about wanting a judge with empathy and assumes quite erroneously that a judge cannot be both empathetic and impartial. Just for the record, a definition of empathy-the capability to share your feelings and understand another's emotion and feelings. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes," or in some way experience what the other person is feeling. I can state from personal experience that you are much more likely to get justice from a judge who has some understanding of where you are coming from than one who doesn't have a clue about what goes on in your neighborhood.

Next he talks about the Ricci case as if she is solely responsible for it. When in fact, she was one of a three judge panel which unanimously upheld the decision of the district court and in the majority of a 7-6 decision that the case did not merit further review at the circuit court level. He also does not mention that the plaintiffs in the case were not all white, but white and Hispanic. If she is guilty of letting her "race" influence her decision, why did should rule against the Hispanics in this case. Maybe one should look at the Cabranes dissent as the one that was racially motivated.

And finally he continues to parrot the right wing talking points by taking her comments about "a wise Latina woman" totally out of the context. In fact he violates one of the clearest standards of interpretation by stringing quotes together to make his point. I have always given him credit for his bible study skills but wonder if maybe he also treats the biblical text so unfairly. For a brief discussion of what she meant in her 2001 speech, see Charles Savage's NY Times column, A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record.

I am not suggesting that Richard Land's objection to her nomination is racially motivated. It is obvious that his objection comes from being in bed far too long with the radical right wing of the republican party. But the arguments he uses are certainly tainted by the underlying racism of the southern baptist convention. It began as a racist organization and, in spite of its proclamations to the contrary, continues to demonstrate that racism in the way it and some of its members relate to American society.

Far from being solid analysis as one reader commented, this is a hatchet job on an extremely well qualified judge.

Which Part of "NO LAW" Does He Not Understand?

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Wed, 27 May 2009 21:14:00 +0000

Georgia does it again!

It never ceases to amaze me that people are smart enough to get elected to congress but not smart enough to read and interpret things like the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .

And just for those who have to be hit over the head with it. Here it is set in stone-

But over and over both nationally and locally well-meaning government officials keep ignoring what it says. The newest attempt is from Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), a medical doctor and member of Prince Avenue Baptist Church in Athens, Ga. (Why do these kinds of things come so often from Georgia and Alabama?) As if to justify what he clearly knows to be "bs" the good doctor said in an interview with the Washington Post, "This doesn't have anything to do with Christianity . . ." Just how stupid does he think the American people are?

If you are now feeling superior to the buffoons in Georgia who keep electing people like this here are the bill's co-sponsors:

Rep Gingrey, Phil -GA

Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. -GA

Rep Carter, John R. -TX

Rep Gohmert, Louie -TX

Rep Marchant, Kenny -TX

Rep Forbes, J. Randy -VA

Rep Goodlatte, Bob -VA

Rep Akin, W. Todd- MO

Rep Bachmann, Michele -MN

Rep Franks, Trent -AZ

Rep Jordan, Jim -OH

Rep Lamborn, Doug -CO

Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. -MI

Rep Pence, Mike -IN

Rep Wamp, Zach -TN

That's three from Georgia, three from Texas, and two from Virginia. Just so you can be well-informed, Rep. Westmoreland is the same one that made of fool of himself on the Colber(t) Repor(t) when, after sponsoring a bill to post the ten commandments in public buildings, could only name three of them and got one of them wrong. No matter how you grade it, 2 out of 10 is failing.

To read more on this story go to:

'Year of the Bible' resolution roils Congress

Lawmaker wants to make 2010 'Year of the Bible'

The Totaled Woman Is Alive and Well at SWBTS

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:48:00 +0000

The latest edition of the Latest News from Southwestern is just full of fun(dy) stuff. It may take me awhile to comment on all of it, so check back for updates.

First, an update on the happy homemaker program at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. My first post on this subject came back in 2007 when the program was announced.

http://sepherim.blogspot.com/2007/08/two-pictures-are-worth.html

Now the seminary is proudly showcasing the new home on seminary hill for the happy homemaker home. You can see the proud parents in the press release,
"Southwestern Seminary dedicates Horner Homemaking House"

Acccording to the press release, the building, named the Sarah Horner Homemaking House, will serve as an educational building but will look more like a house than a classroom, complete with kitchen and textile lab, as well as a large library, full of resources for classroom lectures. Upstairs, two rooms will house students in the homemaking concentration and another room will be available for guest housing.

Next, just in case you are wondering if they do still allow women to teach about children's ministry at Fort Fundamentalist, "Trustees elected Karen Kennemur as assistant professor of children’s ministry in the School of Educational Ministries." I do wonder how they justify having a wife and mother of three children work outside the home like this. What kind of example is that setting for all of the future happy homemakers?

A Sad Day in Louisville

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:26:00 +0000

No, inspite of what some of you think, I'm not referring to the upstart team that beat the Sooner women in the tournament. Today I'm addressing a subject which may or may not (depending on your theological perspective) have more lasting significance.

I have many friends who attended the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary who were proud of the quality of theological education that they received. But now like those of us who attended the institution farther West, have good reason to take their diplomas down from the wall, or as one friend told me, turn it around so no one can see where it came from. Just read down through the "changes" that have taken place since the conservative insurgency in a recent article from the Associated Baptist Press, "Mohler presidency marked by change."

Some highlights (or lowlights):

·         Caused the exodus of about 60 percent of the seminary's faculty, who left either by force or voluntarily.
·         Closed the School of Church Music and Worship
·         Fired Diana Garland as dean of the Carver School of Social Work and abolished the Carver School of Social Work.
·         Redirected its Christian counseling department, moving away from the model of "pastoral care."

You might also want to look at "Jesus couldn’t teach church social work at Southern Seminary."

This article comes from the Texas Baptists Committed. (I always thought that name was an ill-informed choice and yet somehow strangely applicable.) Since I have saved most of my rapier like wit for the swbts, I feel it only fair to give Mohler Mayhem equal time.

What's the difference between a Georgia baptist and a republican congressman?

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:36:00 +0000

Answer-

Nothing-neither of them has a clue.

Republicans in congress want to continue the totally failed policies of the totally failed presidency of gw and the Georgia baptists want to continue the totally failed policy of discriminating against those who refuse to discriminate. I won't say much more about the repubs in this post. That will come later as the story plays out. The short-sighted mysogyny of Georgia baptists (who are generally representative of southern baptists as a whole, but sometimes slightly less regressive than their Alabama neighbors) have waged a full-scale battle against First Baptist Church-Decatur for the last two years. The church's sin was to call a woman as pastor. They called Julie Pennington-Russell in 2007. That, of course, is a clear violation of the Baptist Faith & Message (2000 perversion) which states: “the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” Do the Bible study. How many times does the NT talk about the “office of pastor?” How many times does the word "pastor" even show up in the NT?The modern model of pastor as CEO is not biblical. Look at the older versions of the BF&M. They are much more true to scripture than the modern perversion.

Ms. Pennington-Russell had been serving at a baptist church in that hot-bed of denominational rebellion known as "Jerusalem on the Brazos." For the uninitiated, that's Waco, TX. I have commented on the lack of biblical support for the sbc's position in other posts and on other blogs and will not repeat it here unless someone is interested.

The sbc elite pride themselves on taking a stand against the demands of culture. One pastor, Bobby Braswell Jr. of Guyton, Ga., wrote that the convention's action is "not a popular position in today's cultural climate, but we are following the dictates of Scripture, not culture." What is abundantly clear is that rather than taking a stand against culture in their objection to women in church leadership positions, the sbc is actually supporting the same culture that brought us racism and slavery.

If you have not followed this story, I have provided a series of links to Associated Baptist Press stories.

18 June 2007

Pennington-Russell set to make history as pastor of large Decatur church

2 February 2008

Regain respect by rejecting exclusion, author Grisham urges fellow Baptists

13 November 2008

Opinion: Georgia Baptists isolate themselves

14 November 2008

Georgia Baptists reject church with woman pastor

27 January 2009

Church with woman pastor expects further rebuke from Georgia Baptists

And I Thought Oregon Was Progressive Maybe Even Liberal

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 22:03:00 +0000

I am indebted to Andy at The Cool Justice Report for calling my attention to this story. I try to keep up with book-banning/burning events but I missed this one.

Helen Jung reports in the Oregonian: "The Crook County School District has temporarily removed a book from classrooms after one parent complained to the school board that the National Book Award winner was "trashy" and "inappropriate."

Her article is Crook County removes book from schools after parent complains

What is wrong with a parent who would make this kind of a complaint about a book described as "deeply funny, politically incorrect, slightly naughty, and heart-wrenching, . . . a glimpse into an unfamiliar culture and maintains a balance between the bleak reality of reservation life and the stunning beauty of a loving family and friendship" in a review in School Library Journal. I know there is probably not grounds for a charge of child abuse here, but maybe there ought to be.

Baptists Put An End To Tolerance

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:34:00 +0000

The fundanazis in charge of various southern baptist organizations continue to demonstrate that lack of concern for historic baptist distinctives. Among the things that baptists of the sbc type have claimed as deeply held spiritucal convictions is the idea of the autonomy of the local church. The moderates who were run out of the sbc over the past few years were always strong supporters of this doctrine even when it led to them being verbally abused by those who felt called to judge the behavior and belief of some congregation other than their own. Among the big issues back in the 70s that got the moderates in trouble, was allowing churches that practiced the more controversial spiritual gifts, like speaking in tongues, to remain members in good standing. But the current leadership has consistently just given lip service to this historic baptist doctrine. This is nowhere more apparent than in today's press release from the Associated Baptist Press, an alternative to the sbc's official mouth organ, the baptist press. The first article which demonstrated this lack of concern for local church autonomy was about NC baptists who will no longer allow cooperating churches to funnel their gifts through the convention to anyone but "approved" baptist concerns. Particularly targeted with the gifts to the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a splinter group formed by some of the aforementioned moderates. The statement which reveals the somewhat lack of Christ-like spirit from those opposed to the open giving plan came from Eric Page, pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Columbus, who said "that refusing
to take a strong stand would promote "tolerance" of a group with which most North Carolina Baptists disagree. (We certainly wouldn't want any church to promote tolerance now would we?)
Page illustrated his point by saying the cartoon character Popeye took abuse only so long before he "popped out" a can of spinach and put an end to it."

Are you ready for this line?!?!

"It's time for us to pop out a can of spinach and put an end to tolerance," he said.

Farther down in the same ABP release we find baptists isolating themselves even more.

"On Nov. 12, in a front-page story, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the news that the Georgia Baptist Convention has approved a new policy giving GBC executives the freedom to refuse donations from churches it finds to be out of step with Southern Baptist beliefs. The policy move is aimed (for now) at First Baptist Church Decatur, because it called a woman, Julie Pennington-Russell, to serve as pastor."

So now Georgia baptists don't even have to vote on it. Their executives can decide for them which churches are "out of step." This is even more tragic when you consider the number of times Georgia baptists and other "good" southerners refused to censure churches for blatant racism because of local church autonomy. If you want a a good example of this just google "racism beyond the grave."

You people out there who have remained in your southern baptist church with its connection to the sbc better be aware. It is only a matter of time before "they" find some reason to come after you.

Jesus-A Bleeding Heart Liberal?

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:51:00 +0000

I am frequently reminded how wrong we can be when we stereotype people based on their religious convictions, or based on just about anything else. I am guilty of thinking of people I know (with a few very notable exceptions) that attend the Alexander Campbell type of Churches of Christ as being conservative reactionaries when it comes to politics. The following letter, written to a Tulsa newspaper by an elder in one of the local churches is just such a reminder.

You can read the full letter on the Morning Rush blog at http://terryrush.blogspot.com/2006/12/being-salt-and-light.html.

I will just give you his final paragraph:

"If Jesus were walking the Earth today, from his actions and his words, some might understandably describe him as a bleeding heart liberal. But in truth, he is more accurately described as a bleeding hands, feet and side compassionate. And so must we be if we intend to bear his name. "

I have been told that the author of the letter went beyond words to actions when he contributed to the Obama campaign.

An Open Letter To Barack Obama

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 16:22:00 +0000

If anyone with any connections to the Obama campaign reads this letter, please pass this on to somebody who can influence campaign strategy.

Dear Senator Obama,
I watched the debate last night with friends who are mostly Obama supporters plus a couple of independents who have not made up their minds. Unanimously, the consensus of the watchers was that you wasted valuable time repeating the attacks you made in the previous debate against John McCain. Everybody knows McCain is tied to Bush. Everybody knows McCain supports the war in Iraq. Everybody knows McCain supports tax cuts for the rich. What all of us were looking for were specific answers to questions that concern us all, particularly on the economy. We all thought you were better than your opponent last night, but you did let McCain steal the headlines for coming up with something new that might help the average American, the buy-up of mortgages. Please stop wasting time attacking McCain. Spend more time convincing the independents that you really are the one that can help them.

Let the bloggers do the attacking. They really are better at it than you are anyway. Don't get down in the gutter with Palin/McCain. Take the high road, talk about the issues, refuse to be sucked in to the character debates. The main reason swiftboating hurt John Kerry was because people remembered him throwing his medals over the Whitehouse fence. It resonated with them. There is nothing in your background that can cause the same reaction. Just shrug off the attacks saying, "We don't have time for that kind of campaigning. There are too many problems to solve and too little time to solve them, so here's what I'm going to do . . ."

You have our support. My family, which is large, is 100% behind you. Now show us your are worthy of our support.

Thanks,

Manny Tomes
An evangelical Vietnam Vet from Norman, OK

Famous Last Words

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:16:00 +0000

"I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war." When John McCain made this memorable statement it was an obvious attempt to disparage his opponents motives. Now, because of his ill-conceived selection of Sarah Palin as running mate, we clearly see that he did not mean he wouldn't endanger the country in other ways just to try to win a political campaign. Carl Bernstein, as astute an analyst of the political scenc as anyone writing today, says it well in his article, The Palin Pick -- The Devolution of McCain. Berstein says,

Indeed, no presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running mate. He is 72 years old; has had four melanomas, a particularly voracious form of cancer; refuses to release his complete medical records. Three of our last eleven presidents (and nine of all 43) have come to office unexpectedly in mid-term from the vice presidency: Truman, who within days of FDR's death was confronted with the decision of whether to drop the atom bomb on Japan; Lyndon Johnson, who took the oath in Dallas after JFK's assassination; Gerald Ford, sworn in following the resignation of Richard Nixon. A fourth vice president, George H.W. Bush, briefly exercised the powers of the presidency after the near-assassination of Ronald Reagan.

Given that history, what does John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin -- the cavalier, last-minute process of her selection and careless vetting; and her over-briefed, fact-lite performance since -- reveal about this military man who has attested to us for years that he is guided by his personal code of honor? "Two things I will never
do," McCain told me, "are [to] lie to the American people, or put my electoral interests before the national interest" -- an obvious precursor of "I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war."

He then answers his own question:

It does not take a near-death experience to know that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be commander in chief, or that -- in choosing her -- McCain has ignored his own oft-avowed code of conduct. "McCain made the most important command decision of his life when he chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee," noted David Ignatius in the Washington Post. "....No promotion board in history would have made such a decision."

I having no problem praising Berstein for coming to this decision because he now agrees with me. Of course I came to this same conclusion almost a month ago. See my post McCain Throws the Election on August 29, 2008.

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:48:00 +0000

I don't always agree with the folks at MoveOn.org but this message hits the nail on the head.

Yesterday was one of the stranger days in presidential election history. John McCain actually asked to "suspend" Friday's much anticipated debate with Barack Obama so that he could posture on the financial crisis.

Even the arch-conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board was mystified.

Bottom line: This isn't presidential behavior. It's a desperate, reckless move that actually threatens to make it harder to resolve this crisis. And of course, presidents have to be able to handle lots of important issues at once—they can't panic and take their eyes off of one urgent priority when another one pops up.

Obama wants the debate to go forward. So do millions of other Americans. With 40 days left until the most important election in a generation, we deserve a debate on the issues. What's motivating all this panicky erratic behavior from McCain? It's hard to tell, but here are what some of the experts are saying might be behind it: A drop in the polls. As Politico writer Ben Smith pointed out, "In terms of the timing of this move: The only thing that's changed in the last 48 hours is the public polling."

Stopping the VP debate. Last night, McCain surrogate Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that the vice presidential debate between Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden be postponed indefinitely to accommodate his request to postpone tomorrow's debate. (Now, why would they ever want to postpone or cancel the VP debate?)

Pure reckless decision-making. McCain has a history of reckless decision-making. Here's how Time's Joe Klein put it yesterday, "McCain suspends his campaign because of financial crisis? Oh please. Given today's poll numbers—even Fox has him dropping—it seems another Hail Mary (like the feckless selection of Palin) to try make McCain seem a statesman, which is difficult given the puerile tenor of his campaign's message operation."

And the Wall Street Journal wrote last week: "In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help."

But whatever the cause is, McCain's wrong. Serious situations like this one are exactly the time when Americans most need a real discussion—a debate.

We've got to make sure that the Debate Commission doesn't bend under Republican pressure. Can you sign this emergency petition to the Commission on Presidential Debates urging them to hold strong and make sure that the debate go forward on Friday, as planned? We'll make sure they get your comments by the end of the day.

Clicking below will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/demanddebate/o.pl?id=14042-8768238-oW5enXx&t=3

The petition reads: "Now more than ever, the American people deserve a presidential debate. We urge you to make sure the debate goes forward as planned tomorrow night."

Witch: But we spell it differently

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:33:00 +0000

One of my favorite musicals is Brigadoon. And one of my favorite lines in the show come when the townspeople of Brigadoon are telling New Yorker, Jeff Douglas, about the witches that threatened the village. Jeff responds, "We have them where I come from too, only we spell it differently." That has always been my approach to Ann Coulter, but she makes some truly outrageous claims in her column when she tries to demonstrate her knowledge of the Bible and fails miserably. It comes in her rather lame response to the rather lame comments by a well-meaning democrat as reflected in the bumper sticker at the top of the post. In response to the incredibly stupid remarks by Rudy and Sarah at the repubcon, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said: "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, who our minister prayed about. Pontius Pilate was a governor." I have been amazed at the groundswell of righteous or not so righteous indignation emanating from the religious non-left.

An editorial by the publisher Loné Beasley of an Ada, Oklahoma newspaper said: "Jesus was not a community organizer. For anyone to say so as a way of promoting a political candidate shows as gross a misunderstanding as has ever been generated by a presidential campaign. Jesus dealt with individuals and individuals only, not entire communities."

The publisher needs to look at the gospels again. He will find that Jesus entire ministry took place in communities, both large and small. When he was in town, the crowds were so big, people had to tear through the roof to get to him. When he walked by the sea, he had to get into a boat to keep from being pressed by the crowd. Even when he went up on the mountain side, the crowds followed him. How could he have fed 5,000 and 4,000 people dealing with "individuals and individuals only." I wonder what the publisher thinks Jesus was doing when he organized his own community called "the church."

Pastor Chris, Gig Harbor, Washington, said: "Let me make one thing clear – as an actually believer in Jesus: 'Jesus was not a "community organizer.' Jesus is the Son of God, the Lord of the universe, the savior of humanity. Demeaning Jesus as a "community organizer" is an insult to every Christian believer in the world. But, more importantly, it is a reckless, blasphemous and profane attack on the Divine Person who sits at the right hand of God the Father.

He goes on to give a dire warning to those who would stoop to such political skullduggery, "I wouldn't want to be in the shoes of anyone who throws around such mischaracterizations of the Living God for political gain."

I guess Pastor Chris forgot that part of the Christian creed that says that Jesus was fully human as well as being fully divine. Somehow, in light of many of his teachings, I don't think the human part of Jesus would object to being known as a community organizer. Remember that the teaching of Jesus that is emphasized more than any other by nearly all of the New Testament writers is "Love your neighbor as yourself." Do publisher Loné and pastor Chris think all of those neighbors were living out in the wilderness all by themselves? Perhaps there were some communities around somewhere.

I really liked the comment by the guy who said that even if Jesus was a community organizer, Pilate was not a governor, he was a prefect. If this guy will do just a little more homework he will find out that a prefect is one level of Roman governor.

But the best (worst) comments from the aforemention witch (check spelling) who in her regular fashion produces some poorly written attempts at being ironic or satirical saying, "Rep. Cohen would be well-advised to stay away from New Testament references. As anyone familiar with the New Testament can confirm for him, there are no parables about Jesus passing out cigarettes for votes, lobbying the Romans for less restrictive workfare rules or filing for grants under the Community Redevelopment Act. No time for soul-saving now! First, we lobby Fannie Mae to ease off those lending standards and demand a windfall profits tax on the money-changers in the temple."

If she really knew as much about the New Testament as she wants us to believe, she would know that Jesus spent very little time "saving souls." That was left to his followers after he ascended back to heaven. Those closest to him at the time (the community of twelve) really did think he was "organizing" the Jews to throw off the Roman oppressors and bring on the kingdom of God. She also makes her weak little attempts to insult the work of community organizers.

But her number one, super-stupid remark comes earlier in the column when she tries to make a case for George Washington being pro-life because in a speech to his troops before going into battle in 1776, he said, "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army." She says, "So Washington . . . gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the "unborn." That's right! George Washington was a "pro-life extremist," just like Sarah Palin. I've know her to say some crazy stuff, but that one pretty much tops them all.

Hey McCain, Shutup!

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:43:00 +0000

I realize an opening like that is not appropriate in this day of political correctness. And after all McCain is a "real American hero." But I have to agree with Mitchell Bard in his article, "It's Time for the "Deregulators" Like McCain to Step Aside and Shut Up" For some reason all of the people in Washington who are responsible for the economic "CF" keep talking like they think they can now dictate the terms of the solution. It's bad enough that we have to let Bush in, but there is no way congress should allow them to say what kind of "clean bill" they want. Congress needs to have the (I would say balls but that would be sexist) intestinal fortitude to pass a bill with oversight and tax payer protection and dare the shrub to veto it. Then the shrub and his twin can go sit out in Arizona or Texas and watch the sun go down and keep their damn mouths shut. Where does John McCain think he gets the credibility to demand "oversight" and "regulation" now after an entire career of fighting "oversight" and "regulation." So once again I say.

Hey McCain, Shutup!!

Potholes and Garbage

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:50:00 +0000

Question: Who said

"I am prepared. I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time. "

Answer: John McCain in the Republican Debate, October 21, 2007.

Of course then he was running against Mayor Giuliani, mayor of one of the largest cities in the world, and Governor Romney, governor of Massachusetts with 6.5 million people.

Let me make sure I understand McCain's reasoning.
Being the mayor of one of the largest cities in the world doesn't adequately prepare you to be president.
Being governor of Massachusetts, population 6.5 million doesn't adequately prepare you to be president.

But being mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,469 and governor of Alaska, population 670,000 does adequately prepare you to be the proverbial "heartbeat away from the presidency."

I think Barack Obama said it well last night. Being mayor of a small town is a tough job. You have to make sure the potholes get filled and the garbage gets picked up. Sounds like qualifications to be the strongest person in the free world to me. So please send Sarah back to her potholes and garbage and get serious about who is going to be president of the United States.

Baptist Leaders Backpedal After Palin Nomination

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:20:00 +0000

After years of using their interpretation of certain biblical teachings to beat women into submission-

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband" and "has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation." (Excerpted from the Baptist Faith and Message)

The current leadership of the southern baptist convention is rapidly backpedalling in order to support Sarah Palin for vice president. The uniquivocal voice of the SBC leadership in the past few years has been that the wife's first responsibility is to be in the home. One large church in Oklahoma went so far as to fire all of the church secretaries who were church members because they were not supposed to be working outside the home.

Now, however, that Sarah Palin, a mother whose home obviously needs attention, has been nominated by the republican party, they are claiming that that teaching was never intended to speak to women in secular leadership positions only to women in church and family where she is commanded to submit to the headship of her husband. Let me get this straight, according to this teaching there is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president or even president of the United States as long as she serves as Todd's helper in managing the household and nurturing their five children including a special needs baby.

Don't get me wrong, I think there is nothing wrong with a woman trying to do that. I am just amazed that people like Albert Mohler and the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission can believe that anyone with half a brain will believe their illogical extrapolations. There is at least one southern baptist pastor who is sticking with his beliefs,

"I don't see this as a pro-family pick at all!" said Voddie Baucham, a popular author and conference speaker who serves as preaching pastor at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, Texas. "In fact, I believe this was the anti-family pick."

"My point is simple," Baucham said in a blog. "The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul's admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking."

You can read a fuller account of Baucham's statement at Baptist Preacher Terms Palin VP Pick 'Anti-Family'

Another good source for analysis of this issue is Robert Parham's article, Politician Palin Forces Theological Revisionism at the EthicsDaily.com website.

The Lies Just Keep On Coming

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:32:00 +0000

An old joke with a new subject: "How can you tell when Sarah Palin is lying? Her mouth is open." It just keeps getting piled higher and deeper. Now the Washington Post is reporting some very questionable travel claims including staying in a $700 a night hotel in NY. Not that's what I call a fiscal conservative. Since I am primarily just ranting about McCain/Palin at this point let me point you to a blog that is doing more documentation of the lies and insanity of the McCain crowd.

Go see

How Insane Is John McCain?

He gives you enough evidence to keep several grand juries deliberating for a long time.

Eight Years of Lies Is Enough

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 03:29:00 +0000

I have been upset for the last couple of years because no one on a national level, whether politician or media pundit was willing to tell the truth about George Bush and John Cheney. The flat truth is that they lied about the situation in Iraq in order to get support for their stupid war. And they have continued to lie in order to keep the American people from totally revolting against them. I lost all respect for several people at high levels in government for not only refusing to call a lie a lie but continuing to support the Bush war even though they knew it was based on lies. Among these are Condolezza Rice, Joe Lieberman, and sure enough John McCain. I don't care how much they think the war was a good idea. It was based on lies that Bush and his cronies told to the American people.

And now, John McCain and Sarah Palin evidently think if Bush could get away with it regarding the war, they can get away with it in the campaign. And even after the truth is told they keep telling the lies, evidently thinking that if they just keep saying it, people will eventually believe them. One reallyobvious big lie is that Sarah Palin was against the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere." She supported it from the beginning of her statewide political career until it was obvious that it was making Ted Stevens the laughingstock of the Senate. Then even after she canceled the project, she kept the $200+ million for other pet projects in Alaska including a new road that led to the place the bridge was supposed to be.

John McCain lied when he said Barack Obama had not introduced any legislation. John McCain lied when he said he was the lobbyists worst enemy. Sarah Palin lied when she said BarackObama had asked for a billion dollars in earmarks in one year. Sarah Palin lied about her own requests for "earmarks" both as a mayor and as a governor. Sarah Palin lied about her involvement in the troopergate scandal. I was amazed just this morning when one of her old exercise buddies said on Good Morning America that if there is one thing Sarah Palin is, it is honest.

Of course, the BIG LIE concerns John McCain himself. Far from being a proponent of change, he is a major part of the problem in Washington. George Bush along with his republican allies in congress has come close to destroying the American economy in the last eight years and we haven't even begun to pay for the war yet.

I do not understand how anyone can honestly support John McCain and Sarah Palin in the current election. Their campaign is filled with lies from beginning to end. My only conclusion is that the purported 46-48% of Americans who are supporting the liars McCain and Palin are blind, stupid or just plain evil.

This is not a lie. It's 133 days until the end of the Bush disaster and America cannot stand one more day of the same failed policies, much less four more years. If you really care about this country, look at the records, look at the evidence and tell John McCain to pick one of his houses to go hide in and tell Sarah Palin to go back to Alaska. They elected her, they can have her.

The Daily Show Breaks News on Palin

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:13:00 +0000

While I have generally been disappointed in the Daily Show's coverage of the conventions this year, the following clip, which includes Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly, and even Sarah Palin saying words they should have to eat, is definitely up to their old standards.

More on Palin Watch--Hypocrites

noreply@blogger.com (sepherim) — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:22:00 +0000

This is truly an historic day. I finally found a Cal Thomas statement that I can agree with. In a column about the media unfair treatment of Sarah Palin, his opening line is "We are such hypocrites." He can just stop there and he will have for once spoken the truth. But no he has to go on and castigate the media for piling on the Palin family because of Bristol's pregnancy. Doesn't he realize that the only reason the media is piling on is because Sarah Palin represents herself as part of that group of Christians who have been piling on other people for years who crossed the line of their loudly proclaimed family values. But somehow, when the plank is in her eye, we are not supposed to notice it. I want to thank one of my conservative friends for making me aware of Cal's column.

I am truly sorry that Bristol Palin's sex life has become a topic of conversation for the whole world. I know she didn't ask for that. But the one person responsible for it is her mother, the righteous Sarah Palin. Supposedly she knew her daughter was pregnant when she accepted the nomination and surely she is not so politically naive as to think that it would be kept secret. Should candidates' families be off-limits, absolutely. Will they be if there is any hint of scandal? Absolutely not. Why was Chelsea Clinton constantly bombarded with questions about her father's sexual practices? No child should be subjected to that, but it was a sure fire way to get ratings and sell papers. And if you don't think the horde of news people are in it for the money just ask Rupert Murdoch.

If you want to read the Thomas column here is the link, just remember if you want the truth just read the first line.

http://townhall.com/Columnists/CalThomas/2008/09/04/what_standards